Copyright

by

Angela Marie Newell

2011

The Dissertation Committee for Angela Marie Newell Certifies that this is the

approved version of the following dissertation:

THE PEOPLE’S WEB: GOVERNMENT AS NEXUS

Committee:

Peter M. Ward, Supervisor

Gary Chapman (Deceased)

William Aspray

Victoria Rodriguez

Michael D. Smith

Chandler Stolp

THE PEOPLE’S WEB: GOVERNMENT AS NEXUS

by

Angela Marie Newell; B.A., M.S.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin

August 2011

Dedication

To the woman who stood over my shoulder and the sister with whom I swore

Mom and Kate

my heart, my inspiration, my joy

And, to the incredible women who blazed the trail

Chris, Susan, Jeanette, Maureen, Roni, Sarah, Victoria

And my wonderful grandmothers, who passed along the way

v

Acknowledgements

A dissertation starts with a seed. That seed was planted when I was an

undergraduate in Dr. William Zanardi's Worlds, Minds, and World-making class. Dr.

Zanardi taught me to see past the intended veneer and question the constructs of the

world. He also taught me that we are empowered within that construct to build a better

world--with all the perils, pitfalls, and greatness that entails. Through my service with

AmeriCorps and as a National Service Fellow, I learned how the construct of democracy

works and the kind of empowerment it takes for citizens to make a difference for our

fellow world residents. I am incredibly grateful to Dr. Zanardi and to my country for

opening the door to the ideas and responsibilities of world-making and for the

opportunity to serve.

The seed for my dissertation sprouted at Carnegie Mellon University where I

learned the necessary tools of analysis and strategic thinking when tackling complex

issues of innovation and development. My work took its nascent form from the concepts

explored when working with Michael Smith, Silvia Borzutsky, Denise Rousseau, David

Krackhardt, and Peter Shane. Insights from these great thinkers shaped how I understood

and approached the organizational and information design constructs.

That seed took root and formed at the University of Texas at Austin where I was

expected to work hard, be brilliant, and given the opportunity to accesses invaluable

resources and move freely across disciplines to meet the challenges of research. Thank

you to the excellent faculty and staff of the University and particularly to the LBJ School

vi

of Public Affairs for housing me, feeding me, and giving me the intellectual nourishment

to execute a massive research project. In particular, thank you to Ken Flamm, Ken

Matwiczak, Bob Wilson, Jacqueline Angel, and Lucy Neighbors for putting food on my

table and opportunity in my path. I would especially like to thank the staff of the

Graduate School for their quick and fantastic support of students. Special thanks to

Cathy White, John Dalton, Lynn Margason, and Bob Penman for incredible events and

technical support.

To my incredible cohort: Fred Beach, César Martínez Espinosa, Tanvi Madan,

Stephen Palmer, and Wenjie Zhang. Thank you for great debates, for thoughts

uncommon, and for pushing me beyond expectation. Thank you to Andrew Krzmarzick

at GovLoop and Beth Noveck in the White House for giving early light to my research

and believing that it had the potential to make a difference for our country.

I would like to thank the Committee O' Mine--Peter Ward, Victoria Rodriguez,

Bill Aspray, Sherri Greenberg, Michael Smith, Chandler Stolp, and the late but

phenomenal Gary Chapman. These unbelievably intelligent, questioning, kind, giving,

amazing human beings have made an indelible mark in my life and given me the

branches with which I will take shape in the world. In particular I would like to extend

my deepest gratitude and affection to Peter Ward who knew when to push me, when to

hold me back, and when to let me go. And who taught me to trust in ways I never

imagined I could.

To Jim for being the beast of burden and keeping down the home front. I am so,

so grateful to you and glad that you entered our lives.

vii

And to the man who, every day, every hour, every minute stood behind me and

told me I could do it, was doing it, and finally did it. I would not be here without you

being there every step of the way. Thank you Mr. (soon to be Doctor) Martinez.

Finally, thank you to my friends and my family. You are the earth that provides

me nourishment, the water that provides me movement, and the light that gives me life.

Without you, there would be no seed. Thank you.

viii

The People’s Web: Government as Nexus

Angela Marie Newell, PhD

The University of Texas at Austin, 2011

Supervisor: Peter M. Ward

With the advent of new interactive Internet technologies in government, a move

from the transactional loop of electronic government to a more web-like structure of

interaction is anticipated for government information systems. It has been argued that

that web-like structure of information systems will dictate a new organizational form for

government organization. Explored within the dissertation are two primary research

questions. The first research question relates to understanding the nature of adoption of

new interactive Internet tools in government agencies and whether that adoption differs

from the adoption process for transactional systems. To understand the nature of

interactive technology adoption, presidential directives, legislation, and laws

implementing transactional and interactive information systems are evaluated.

Discovered in evaluation are the motivating factors in technology adoption and related

technology adoption and organizational outcomes. Accompanying that evaluation is an

exploration of the new technologies being used by government agencies as a part of the

technology adoption process.

To understand the nature of the differences in infrastructure of information

systems associated with transactional information technologies and interactive

information technologies, a series of case studies were developed. For each case, an

exploration of the technology implemented and a map of the Internet architecture for the

ix

technology were constructed. Findings suggest that the adoption process and the

information system architecture of transactional and interactive technologies are

different. Though it is too early in the adoption and implementation process to discern

any impacts to the government organization, the technology adoption and implementation

is couched in larger organizational theory. Extrapolations are made to address the future

form of the government organization and policy outcomes for continued implementation

of interactive systems and the organizational impacts are discussed.

The second research question relates to the value associated with the

implementation of new interactive Internet technologies. To understand any value

associated with implementation of technologies, a qualitative assessment of the value

conversations within government agencies was conducted, an assessment of citizen value

ranking of data was undertaken, and a quantitative analysis of differences in customer

service scores given the use of interactive information technologies is conducted. This

analysis is triangulated against a historical evaluation of increasing and decreasing scores

and an exploration of specific evaluations conducted for interactive technology projects.

Findings suggest that that there is value in implementing interactive Internet

technologies. However, that signal is weak. A suggestion of research is that evaluation

metrics be developed to understand the value of implementing of interactive

technologies. Policy suggestions are outlined for technology value evaluation.

The concluding outcome of the dissertation is a suggestion of a path forward for

interactive Internet technology development in government and an argument for the

construct of the emerging organizational structure associated with information

organizations.

x

Table of Contents

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... xiv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................xv

Chapter 1: Democratic Innovation ...........................................................................1

Technology Adoption .....................................................................................2

E-Government to I-Government .....................................................................6

Research Questions .......................................................................................11

Overview .......................................................................................................14

Conclusion ....................................................................................................16

Chapter 2: Transaction Meets Interaction ..............................................................18

Introduction ...................................................................................................18

Bureaucracy and Technology Enactment .....................................................21

Technology Enactment .................................................................................24

Phasing in e-Government, iteration into i-Government ................................30

The Value Construct .....................................................................................34

E-Government, I-Government, and Citizen Participation ............................38

<Alt>Information Technology and Activism </Alt>....................................43

Mind the Gap ................................................................................................48

From E-Government to I-Government: The Emerging Structure .................51

Chapter 3: Laying Down the Law, the Structure of New Technology Adoption ..56

Introduction ...................................................................................................56

Overview .......................................................................................................56

Laying Down the Law ..................................................................................58

The Technologies ..........................................................................................76

Transparency ........................................................................................78

Participation .........................................................................................85

Collaboration........................................................................................88

Flagship .........................................................................................................94

xi

Innovation .....................................................................................................95

Discussion .....................................................................................................96

Sustainability...............................................................................................103

Innovation versus Democracy .....................................................................111

Supplimental 3.1 Open Government Site by Agency .................................118

Supplimental 3.2 Open Government Plan By Agency ...............................120

Supplimental 3.3 Open Government Agency Self-Evaluation Check List .121

Supplimental 3.4 Open Government Innovations Qualitative Database Variable

Description .........................................................................................125

Chapter 4: Of Starfish and Spiders, The Architecture of Interaction ..................128

Introduction .................................................................................................128

Overview .....................................................................................................128

The Starfish and the Spider .........................................................................129

The Architecture of Interaction ...................................................................131

Mapping the Interactive Internet Architecture ............................................133

Decoding the Colors of the Internet Architecture Maps .............................134

The Transactional Web ...............................................................................135

The Interactive Web ....................................................................................140

Transparency ......................................................................................142

Participation .......................................................................................154

Collaboration......................................................................................171

Transactional versus Interactive Web Space ..............................................178

Supplimental 4.1 Code for the Architecture Mapping Tool .......................182

Supplimental 4.2 Data.gov Data Contributions by Agency ........................188

Supplimental 4.3 Data.gov Data Tool Contributions by Agency ...............190

Chapter 5: Ideas that Scale?? The Value of Interactive Internet Technologies ..191

Introduction .................................................................................................191

Overview .....................................................................................................191

The Quality of Information .........................................................................194

Quantitative Evaluation ..............................................................................205

xii

Experimental Design ..........................................................................206

Data 208

Customer Service Score ............................................................208

IdeaScale ...................................................................................212

Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................220

Model and Outcomes .........................................................................221

The Difference in Difference Model .........................................221

Quantitative Modeling Conclusions ..................................................225

The Value Conversation .............................................................................226

The Value Construct in Sum .......................................................................234

Supplimental 5.1 Average Ranking and Ranking Weight of Data in Data.gov by

Agency ...............................................................................................237

Supplimental 5.2 Example of the ForeSee Customer Service Survey ........239

Supplimental 5.3 ForeSee Customer Service Scores for 2009 and 2010 for

Agencies included in Analysis ...........................................................242

Supplimental 5.4 IdeaScale Use by Agency ...............................................243

Supplimental 5.5 Customer Service Score By Quarter and Year ...............244

Supplimental 5.6 Table of All Variables Collected for Modeling ..............245

Chapter Six: Nexus Rising ...................................................................................248

Systematic Themes .....................................................................................248

The Agency of Agencies .............................................................................250

The Nexus ...................................................................................................251

The Nexus and I-government Link .............................................................253

Policy and Governance Implications and Strategy .....................................257

Management Implications ...........................................................................262

Contributions to Literature ..........................................................................264

Future Research ..........................................................................................267

The Value Proposition .......................................................................267

Open Data and International Comparison..........................................268

Communities of Practice and Democratic Outcomes ........................269

Innovation versus Democratization ...................................................269

xiii

Bibliography ........................................................................................................271

Author Vita ..........................................................................................................280

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1.1 E-Government versus I-Government .......................................................8

Table 2.1. Jane Fountain’s Comparison of Weberian and Virtual Bureaucracies .23

Table 4.1 Data.gov Monthly Visitor Statistics 2010............................................146

Table 4.2 Data.gov Monthly Downloads 2010 ....................................................149

Table 5.1 Data.gov Data Rankings ......................................................................200

Table 5.2 Percent of Ranking Share by Rank ......................................................201

Table 5.3 Variables Included in Analysis ............................................................208

Table 5.4 Agencies Included in Analysis ............................................................219

Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................220

Table 5.6 DID Change in Customer Service Score from 2009-2010 with Outliers222

Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics for Data without Outliers ..................................224

Table 5.8 DID Change in Customer Service Score from 2009-2010 without Outliers

.........................................................................................................224

Table 5.9 Department of Treasury Open Government New Technology Benefits

Statement.........................................................................................228

Table 5.10 Department of Defense Open Government Benefits by Audience ....231

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 E-Government Loop and I-Government Web ........................................7

Figure 2.1 E-government Transition Themes ........................................................31

Figure 2.2 Phases of E-Government ......................................................................33

Figure 2.3 The Long Tail .......................................................................................53

Figure 3.1 Enterprise Database Conceptual Diagram ............................................60

Figure 3.2 Environmental Protection Agency Open Government Timeline .........66

Figure 3.3 Example of Open Government Link Set ..............................................68

Figure 3.4 Motivation for Data Publication ...........................................................71

Figure 3.5 Open Government Plan Self Evaluation...............................................74

Figure 3.6 White House Circa 2002 and 2008 .......................................................77

Figure 3.7 FOIA.gov Opening Page ......................................................................80

Figure 3.8 FOIA.gov Data Mining Interface .........................................................82

Figure 3.9 HealthCare.gov .....................................................................................84

Figure 3.10 MyPyramid.gov ..................................................................................86

Figure 3.11 Department of Transportation Regulation Room ...............................88

Figure 3.12 MindMapr ...........................................................................................90

Figure 3.13 VAi2 ...................................................................................................92

Figure 3.14 Challenge.gov .....................................................................................96

Figure 3.15 Department of Health and Human Services Open Government Plan105

Figure 3.16 Social Security Agency Strategic Plan .............................................106

Figure 3.17 Department of Agriculture Agency Values ......................................108

Figure 4.1 Opte Map of the Internet ....................................................................132

Figure 4.2 Transactional Internet Space Apply for Benefits ...............................136

xvi

Figure 4.3 Social Security Administration Apply for Benefits Interface ............138

Figure 4.4 Social Security Administration Transactional Architecture Map ......139

Figure 4.5 Interactive Transparency Site Data.gov .............................................145

Figure 4.6 Data.gov Data Interface ......................................................................148

Figure 4.7 Data.gov Health Data Community .....................................................151

Figure 4.8 Data.gov Architecture Map ................................................................152

Figure 4.9 Regulations.gov Concept Map ...........................................................157

Figure 4.10 Regulations.gov ................................................................................159

Figure 4.11 Documents Submitted by Citizens to Regulations.gov ....................160

Figure 4.12 Regulations.gov Exchange ...............................................................161

Figure 4.13 Regulations.gov Exchange Discussions Interface ............................162

Figure 4.14 Regulations.gov Architecture Map ...................................................163

Figure 4.15 Global Pulse......................................................................................166

Figure 4.16 Global Pulse Discussion Outcomes ..................................................167

Figure 4.17 Global Pulse Architecture Map ........................................................169

Figure 4.18 Peer-to-Patent Process Map ..............................................................173

Figure 4.19 Peer-to-Patent Input Interface ...........................................................175

Figure 4.20 Peer-to-Patent Architecture Map ......................................................177

Figure 5.1 Percentage of Ranked Data.gov Data .................................................197

Figure 5.2 Data.gov Accumulated Citizen Rankings of Agency Data ................199

Figure 5.3 Aggregate Federal Agency Customer Service Score by Quarter and Year

.........................................................................................................210

Figure 5.4 IdeaScale Login ..................................................................................212

Figure 5.5 IdeaScale Submit Your Idea ...............................................................213

Figure 5.6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration IdeaScale Interface 215

xvii

Figure 5.7 Words Most Used in IdeaScale Ideation Process ...............................217

Figure 6.1 Government as Nexus .........................................................................252

1

Chapter 1: Democratic Innovation

An inherent tension exists between the organizations of democratic governments and

information systems. That tension is driven by perceived shifts in power and a theory that

systems configuration drives organizational form. Traditionally, the organizations of

democracy are centralized units that distribute power through command and control

levers, and while there are exceptions, it is generally understood that agencies will follow

the rules of the commander and execute what is commanded. The organizational

structure is hierarchical and rigid in form.

The common understanding of organizational form associated with information systems

is a more networked structure within which power is distributed more evenly and rules

are derived from self-organizational codes that allows the network to operate, but in a

flexible and flatter way. The organizational form associated with information systems is

opposite of the command and control structure. Given its opposite nature, when

bureaucratic agencies attempt to adopt information tools and systems, it is perceived as a

threat to power and a disruption of the organization.

Additionally, as information systems and tools are incorporated into the organizations of

democracy, the relationship of the organization with citizens changes. The nature of the

relationship change rests largely upon the functionalities of the information system. The

function of the system drives citizen access and interaction with the organization. This

2

change in relationship and the perception by the organization that with new information

technologies new patterns of interaction, both internally and externally, and possibly new

power structures often results in hesitance, even resistance to adopt new information

technologies.

The argument of this dissertation is that the tension between organizational structure,

information systems configuration, and power is driving a new organizational structure

for the organizations of democracy. It is argued that the command and control structure

of bureaucracies is essential in technology adoption and diffusion among organizations

and that as organizations adopt new information technologies the flattened network

structure of information systems interacts with the hierarchical structure and results in a

new structure. This new structure is comprised of a strong hierarchical backbone around

and through which networks flow. That flow rests largely on the functionalities of the

underlying information systems. The focus of the development of the organization is on

knowledge flows and information transfer within organizations that maximizes the

intertwined hierarchical and web structure.

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

Some argue that technologies are developed due to an inevitable evolution in the science

and engineering knowledge base. An inventor simply has an idea, sparked by a random

occurrence, and tries to follow the idea to fruition. Or, a culmination of knowledge

reaches a tipping point and dots are connected that result in a new technology. Others

argue that the demands of a society for tools that help in achieving tasks in a more

3

efficient manner drives technology development and adoption. An inventor perceives a

need for a certain object and sets about trying to create and develop the object to fit the

perceived need. A contract for a product with certain parameters and functionalities is

issued and industry rises to meet the technological need.

Technology adoption is often as varied as its creation. Some technologies are adopted

immediately, fitting exactly with a need or filling a gap. Some are adopted and used for a

purpose entirely separate from their creation. Some technologies are adopted by an

external force and imposed on reluctant users who augment existing systems or practices

to fit the technology, sometimes resulting in disastrous disruptions and sometimes

resulting in real efficiencies. And, some technologies sit on their inventor‘s shelves,

objects of art testament to imagination but not to practice.

For the leader in a democracy, choosing a technology that has not yet been proven but is

perceived to be valuable in the society and that has potential value in the governance

process is an art and a risk. Equally, pushing for the development of a technology in

which great investment must be placed without guarantee of adoption can result in huge

wastes of public money and investments. For the leader, choosing the correct technology

is imperative.

In the 1960s, the United States government invested in the Advanced Research Projects

Agency Network, or the ARPANET. The purpose of the ARPANET was to connect

electronic packets of data across a telecommunications line. This connection allowed for

data to be transferred from one machine to another machine and eventually to multiple

machines in a single communications exchange. Ultimately, the ARPANET became the

4

Internet, arguably one of the best communications technologies in history and arguably

an excellent investment in technology on behalf of the government.

As the Internet evolved, so did the government‘s use of it. Clinton‘s 1998 Government

Paperwork Reduction Act served as a directive for the government to move essential

documents into an electronic format that could be transferred over the Internet (Clinton

1995). In 2002, George Bush signed the E-Government Act, which prompted the

agencies of government to move essential business practices into a format that would

allow for citizens to conduct operations like paying taxes and applying for certain

licenses over the Internet (Bush 2002). Barack Obama‘s first act as President on January

22, 2009 was to introduce the Transparency and Open Government Directive, which is

prompting the use of interactive Internet technologies by government to increase

efficiencies in government and to engage citizens in a new format (Obama 2009).

Arguably, each of these acts of the Presidents motivated a shift in the operations of

government. These shifts are associated with a difference in the costs of completing the

business of government and in democratic outcomes for citizens. For Clinton, the shift

was from a government that dealt primarily in paper communications to a government

that incorporated electronic communications into operations. The costs associated with

producing large amounts of paper were reduced with the ability to publish information on

the Internet and citizens had greater access to documents through web pages and

electronic communications. Bush prompted a shift from ―bricks and mortar‖ government

to e-government. The transaction costs of doing business with the government were

greatly reduced and multiple democratic outcomes have been estimated including citizens

engaging in regulation development via the Internet, citizens communicating with elected

5

officials through email, citizens accessing government data available electronically, and

others. It is not yet known what shift, if any, Obama has prompted with his Transparency

and Open Government Directive.

In a series of articles included in the recently published book, Governance and

Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government, the

authors explore the idea of an ―information government.‖ The concept of information

government (i-government) deals largely with understanding the flows of information

within, to, and from government. The authors argue that the advent and use by the

government of interactive information tools intended to increase access to government,

provide opportunities for interaction with government, and increase transparency and the

usability of government data, prompts a shift in governance form. The shift is one from

e-governance which is characterized by electronic information exchange to complete a

transaction to i-government which is characterized by information sharing and

collaboration through interactive Internet tools.

This shift in governance suggests a transformation for agencies using technology as

elements of pure service provision, as is their role in e-governance, to a primary role of

providing tools to assist both government employees and the citizenry in accessing and

using government produced data and information and interacting in more productive

ways. The assumption is that by providing methods for employees and citizens to use

data and information more productively, the government promotes greater internal

efficiencies and increased citizen participation. Additionally, by providing data and

information and tools to use this data and information, agencies promote growth and

development through innovation.

6

In addition to changing government efficiencies and increasing potential for interaction

on the Internet, some structural changes in the organizations of government are also

expected. It is expected that the interactive nature of new technologies will ―flatten‖

government by displacing the more command and control structure that is associated with

bureaucracy with a more networked structure where power is dispersed among multiple

participants of interactive processes. These networks are marked with more collaboration

and participation by non-traditional government participants and partners and power is

more equal. I-government presents innumerable implications for governance and those

who govern, not the least of which is the organizational structure that emerges to support

i-government and the potential for new methods of government-constituent relations.

E-GOVERNMENT TO I-GOVERNMENT

An information government is distinguished from an electronic government in its focus

on data and information use and management over electronic transactions or building

mechanisms for electronic transactions associated with electronic government. Where

electronic government is associated with electronic tools and manipulation of tools and

software to build transactional capacity, information government is associated with tools

that build capacity to exchange information. I-government differs fundamentally from e-

government due largely to the differences in information flow. The structure of

information flow in e-government is associated with a loop function, where information

is exchanged in a closed transaction circuit. The structure of information flow in i-

7

government is associated with a web structure where data and information are shared

among a network of producers and users of the data and information.

Depicted below is the e-government information loop where data and information are

exchanged as part of a one way transactional process, for example paying taxes, applying

for a license or permit, or a variety of other ―bricks and mortar‖ functions that have been

moved online. Alongside the e-government loop is an illustration of the information flow

associated with i-government in which data and information are extracted from one web

space via tool like a published code which tells users how to take the data from one

government web space and link it to another web space and how to add any desired

functionalities like a graphic portrayal of the data or a user defined listing of the data or

some other function—a process that can be repeated by multiple users, much like adding

a mobile widget to a series of web spaces.

Figure 1.1 E-Government Loop and I-Government Web

Source: Government Transaction Loop, www.doh.gov.za

Source: Interactive Government Web, http://web2.wsj2.com

8

In addition to basic information flow differences, e-government and i-government are

comprised of a set of differing characteristics. Those characteristics are defined by how

data is managed and shared and the expected outcomes of data sharing. Thus, where e-

government applications are seemingly developed to enable efficient, secure data

transactions where the government controls the development of tools and the level of

participation, i-government is dictated by a desire to exchange information in a method

that is most useful to those engaging in data and information exchange. The

government‘s role in i-government is to build a set of standards, or rules, under which

data is shared and to provide base data and information to share. Users—both internal to

the government and external to the government—decide how and what parts of data to

share based on what best suits the purpose of data collection and sharing. I-government

is much more about data accessibility and usability than transaction. Summarized in the

following table are the primary characterizations of information flow and organizational

structure that differ between e-governance and i-government.

Table 1.1 E-Government versus I-Government

E-Government I-Government

Transactional Collaborative

One-way information flow Multi-path information flow

Business management Knowledge management

Government defined User defined

Command and control Networks

Proprietary Open standards

G2C, C2G, C2C We

9

Understanding the e-government platform is important because it provides the platform

on which i-government will be analyzed and built—potentially. Some of the tools

associated with i-government include wikis, blogs, web conferencing, videos,

collaborative spaces, and social networking applications. They also include application

programming interfaces (APIs) that allow access to code for data mashups, widgets, and

webpage interfacing and data management tools like data extractors and real-time data

mirrors. Each of these tools provides access to and different methods of extracting and

manipulating data and information provided by the government. The goal of these tools

is to provide an easy entrée to a trusted data and information source and the tools to use

that data and information in ways specified by the users—within standards and

parameters set by the source (government) to promote collaboration, cooperation, and

information development and exchange.

Many current and successful instances of development and use of information sharing

tools exist. Some examples include internal governmental wikis like Congresspedia1 and

Intellipedia2 and Diplopedia,3 external governmental data APIs, like those found on the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) USAspending4 and OMB Watch

FedSpending5 websites, governmental blogs like those found at Gov Gab,6 governmental

social networking tools like GovLoop,7 and government in the virtual world of Second

1 Congresspedia: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congresspedia 2 Intellipedia: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/intellipedia-marks-second-

anniversary.html 3 Diplopedia: http://www.state.gov/m/irm/ediplomacy/c23840.htm 4 USAspending API Documentation: http://www.usaspending.gov/apidoc.php 5 FedSpending API Documentation: http://www.fedspending.org/apidoc.php 6Gov Gab: http://blog.usa.gov/roller/ 7 GovLoop: http://www.govloop.com/

10

Life,8 and data mirrors like those in the Federal Procurement Data System.9 These

instances are characterized by a conscious effort to share information and promote

collaboration and cooperation among agencies, between government units and

contractors, and among citizens. Some, like USAspending and the Federal Procurement

Data System were created by legislation,10 while others, like Diplopedia and GovLoop

arose from an internal desire of government.

The adoption of and use of information sharing tools associated with a move from an e-

government to an i-government has several implications for the structure of government.

This structure is associated largely with function and use of government. E-government

involves the exchange of information in order to complete a transaction among individual

citizens and the government and essentially places exchanges and transactions that would

commonly occur in the physical world online. A similar transactional based system

exists for government to government and government to business transaction. In these

transactions, the government is viewed as providing a service or access to services for

citizens, other governmental units, and businesses where the government organizational

structure is simply augmented to allow for ―business‖ to be conducted online. E-

government is associated with a common vertical or hierarchical structure.

I-government is more about information exchange and sharing, about building a trust

system and developing methods for exchanging information and promoting cooperation

to create new ideas and new information. This sharing of information to promote

8 Second Life Government Examples: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Real_Life_Government/Examples 9 Federal Procurement Data System: https://www.fpds.gov/ 10 Legislation like the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2590

11

cooperation and collaboration looks very different than information exchange to complete

a transaction. Transaction promotes an information loop—a finite, confined circle of

information exchange between two parties. Information sharing promotes an entire

ecology of information—movement and sharing of information among individuals that

extends beyond one enclosed instance, incorporates new players in the diffusion and

creation of information, provides new pathways for information sharing and

development, and contributes to an entire information environment and organizational

structure. I-government is associated with a more horizontal or flattened structure.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The goal of research is to understand the implications, if any, of i-government. The

primary question for research is: as governments incorporate new interactive Internet

technologies into government, is a shift from e-government occurring. If so, what is the

nature of that shift? Is the shift organic, the incorporation of new technologies into

government rising from an innate desire among the people, or is it an exogenous force

recognizing a culmination of knowledge resulting in new technologies prompting their

adoption? Is the shift, if there is a shift, superficial, something talked about in

government memos and in rhetoric, or does it extend to the architectures of agency web

spaces that support the new technologies? Changes, or lack thereof, are observed in both

the legal and architectural infrastructure supporting interactive Internet technologies. The

federal government of the United States of America is the subject of research.

12

A secondary question relates to the return on investment in these technologies. Does the

perceived value associated with new interactive Internet technology manifest? And,

finally, given findings from the exploration of any shifts in government form and from

deriving any value in new technology adoption, are there discernable implications for the

organizational structures of government or for democracy? The purpose of this research

is to contribute to the conversation related to the transition from e-government to i-

government and to understand any value associated with the interactive Internet tools at

the core of that shift.

An hypothesis of research is that the majority of government adoption of new interactive

Internet technologies is not organic to the populous—arising from an expressed need or

desire of the people—but inorganically prompted by an executive governing body.

While examples like Intellipedia and Diplopedia, interactive technologies adopted by

internal agency motivation, exist, it is thought that most government agencies will be

prompted to explore and adopt technologies to meet a demand set forth by the executive.

An example of this exogenous adoption is USASpending. OMB Watch developed

FedSpending as a mechanism for citizens to track annual spending of the federal

government. They used the budget database provided by the Office of Management and

Budget. OMB Watch added programming interfaces into their website so that users

could connect the data to other websites and built visualization tools so that users could

make visual sense—create graphs and charts—of the data.

In 2006, Bush passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Bush

2006). The Act called for similar capacities as existed in FedSpending. Because time

was short to implement the Act, the federal government employees responsible for

13

implementation contacted OMB Watch and developed a partnership with them to

institute their technology within the OMB. The legislation motivated the OMB to adopt

and deploy the new technology. It is thought that at during this beginning phase of new

technology development, similar legislative and government directives will instigate the

adoption of new interactive Internet technologies.

A second hypothesis of this thesis is that a new information architecture—the way

information is used and spread throughout a community of users—arises from the use of

interactive Internet tools. That architecture is specific to the use of interactive

information sharing tools and i-government and distinct from the information loop and

transactional nature of e-governance. This new architecture is predicated on the ideas of

employing information tools to promote data and information accessibility and usability

and collaboration, and the architecture changes based the information tools available for

use. It is hypothesized that its shape is more like that of a neural net with varied paths

and chains, points of entry and exit, and layers of information.

A third hypothesis is that there is value created through the use of information tools in the

form of greater internal efficiencies and increased citizen participation. The value

created arises from lowered barriers to entry (access to data and information via a trusted

data source) which has the potential to increase participation in government while

potentially lowering the burden on government that the increased participation might

suggest. Additionally, the use of information tools like wikis and other interactive tools

has the potential to increase cooperation among and within governmental bodies and

contractors through data and information exchange, and the promotion of new knowledge

14

creation stemming from collaboration. However, these value measures have not been

developed for i-government.

OVERVIEW

In the literature review, the organizational literature associated with government

organizations and the Internet is explored. The literature is explored in three different

themes, literature associated with the early experiences of the organization of government

and the e-government transactional Internet, current experiences of potential i-

government and the interactive Internet, and technology adoption and the markers of

organizations and the interactive Internet. Provided in the literature review are the key

assumptions for observation in exploration of research questions.

The third chapter addresses the research question of the shift from e-government to i-

government and the organic or inorganic development of interactive Internet tools at the

federal government level follows the literature review. Analysis to address this question

involves an in depth assessment of the technologies developed in association with the

Open Government Directive, set forth by the Obama administration in January of 2009.

In the Directive, Obama called for greater transparency, participation, and collaboration

in government. The documents supporting the implementation of the directive explicitly

call for posting of data in electronic formats and specific use of technology in the

implementation of the Directive. Examined within the chapter are resultant technological

differences in technologies developed by the federal government pre and post Directive.

Related in the findings are the nature of organic or inorganic nature of technology

15

development and adoption and the potential impacts on federal organizations. Also

provided in the chapter is the context in which interactive information technologies are

developed within the federal government.

Discussed in the fourth chapter are the architectural differences between the transactional

Internet and the interactive Internet that occur when deploying new technologies in the

federal government. Three paths of development are considered, those for transparency,

participation and collaboration. For transparency, the primary observation relates to the

differences in data for transactional purpose as compared with data to support interactive

development of data sets and data tools. For participation, the observation relates to the

ability to comment or email in communication efforts as opposed to the more interactive

process of submitting ideas, having the ability to rank ideas, and contribute to the

decision making process. For collaboration, the observations relate to the ability to use

personal expertise to contribute to government. Findings indicate that architectures for

new interactive technologies are different, but that the development of architectures for

participation efforts suffers in comparison to transparency and collaboration efforts.

Evaluated in the fifth chapter are the constructs of the value conversation surrounding the

implementation of new interactive Internet technologies. The conversation occurs in

three primary venues. The first venue is a discussion of the assessment of information

quality as an evaluation method for i-government. The second is the relationship

between customer service satisfaction and the impact of the implementation on

interactive Internet tools. Additionally explored is the emerging constructs that agencies

use to identify the value of interactive technologies within and among themselves. Used

for analysis is a difference in difference model to explore returns to customer service.

16

Questions explored in the chapter relate to the return on investment in those interactive

technologies and shed light on the value constructs surrounding the implementation of

interactive Internet technologies.

The conclusion addresses the findings for initial questions of research, the shift from e-

government to i-government and the organic or inorganic nature of technology adoption

and diffusion, the structure of the resultant architecture, the value constructs of new

interactive Internet technologies, and implications for the impacts of technology adoption

on the organization. Also included are the implications for policy makers interested in

adopting and deploying interactive Internet tools.

CONCLUSION

In the end, two observations remain. I-government differs from e-government

superficially and architecturally. For the most part agencies develop and adopt new

interactive technologies as prompted by legal instruction set forth by the Executive

through the command and control hierarchy. Initially, the core functionality of these new

interactive technologies directly relates to the values held within the infrastructure and

the desire of the agency to constrict power. However, as agencies comply with the

command to incorporate new technologies into the organization to provide and develop

high quality information and data and as used by employees and by citizens, a network

structure develops around the organizational backbone. This combination of network and

backbone are the base for a new organizational structure.

17

Secondly, understanding any democratizing effects of the new interactive technologies

lies heavily on the assumptions of the definition of democracy. If democracy is

understood as people involved in the decision making process of government, then, by

and large, these new interactive technologies are not motivated for democratic purposes.

Rather, they are motivated by policies for organizational development as well as policies

for democracy. The democratic language that surrounds their promotion can be thought

of as essential components of acculturation for the adoption of new technologies. The

role of value in that process, then, is to promote buy in of organizations and citizens to

adopt and use technologies to promote development and growth.

In emerging i-government, government organizations enable both internal and external

access to high quality information and data that is combined with tools for use while

acting as the core infrastructural component of that interaction. They retain and even

gain power as interaction around them ebbs and flows and as trust is placed in the data

and information they provide. But, they share some of the core responsibilities of agency

and spread decision making over a broader group of citizens and partners and they spur

innovation. As the command and control structure interacts with the network structure, a

new organizational form emerges. That organizational form is a Nexus, where the

organizations of democracy are central and where new elements of democracy emerge.

18

Chapter 2: Transaction Meets Interaction

INTRODUCTION

The broad theoretical question of the dissertation relates to organizational design and

development and the interaction of information technology adoption with organizational

design and development. The argument of this dissertation is that the nature of the

technologies, specifically interactive Internet technologies, being adopted by government

and associated with i-government allows for an organizational form that has existed in

pieces in other theories of organization, but that differs from the assumptions made by

previous theorists, refined and emergent as a new organizational form. The

organizational form suggested in this work is a combination of two theories in the body

of organizational literature. The first theory is that of technological enactment put forth

by Jane Fountain in her work on the organizations of e-government and the second is the

theory of networks associated with i-government.

Weberian bureaucracy dictates a command and control structure wherein power is

concentrated with a few individuals at the top of a hierarchy and distributed through a

strict rule-based system that is defined by a series of strict protocols (Weber 1991). In a

less strict sense, the modern Weberian bureaucracy may be interpreted as a form with

organizational systems theory where organizations are understood through the structure,

relationships, and interdependence between and among these two bodies (Katz and Khan

1966). The Weberian structure rests upon an understanding of government as a siloed

19

service provider whose system of relationships stems from the military construct. For e-

government and i-government, the unpinning structure of the information or electronic

system is the structure of interest and the change in relationships and the relationship

structure is the component of research interest. As reflected in the structure of the

electronic and information systems, it is assumed that the organizational form will consist

of a vast network that will be disruptive to the Weberian command and control structure.

Networked systems theory, as applied to e-government and i-government, struggles with

the reality of the organizational assumptions like Sleznick‘s cooptative mechanism, in

which the organizational structure is forced to adopt a policy or technology because of

threats to its existence and builds on theories like Barnard‘s informal organizations within

formal organizations (Sleznick 1939 and Barnard 1938). For government organization,

the technology adoption process often occurs because of legislation or technology push

factors that arise from a sense of competition and employee or citizen demand. But the

responsibility of government is to be a convener and broker of knowledge, as outlined in

i-government. This role as broker encourages interaction with individuals and structures

that would be considered non-traditional in the Weberian sense. New relationship

structures arise that connect flatter, non-hierarchical participants in informal networks

through new paths of information exchange. As Barnard would suggest, the organization

must absorb these new forms and adapt.

This adaptation, as facilitated through e-government and i-government systems, results in

new decision structures that resemble Follett‘s circular order patterns in the bureaucracy.

Because of multiple and new points of knowledge exchange and because of increased

access to information as provided through electronic information systems, actions and

20

orders start at multiple levels and move through circular patterns between and among

managers, employees, and citizens as the chain of action through the formal and informal

networks is completed. The hierarchical, linear construct of the bureaucracy adapts, but

because the predilection toward cooptation, through the legislative mandate and

presidential directive authorities, does not fully lose its form.

The argument in this dissertation is that the emerging governmental organizational form

is based on the network-like nature of the technology adopted, by and large information

technologies for interaction and knowledge management, and on the Weberian

bureaucratic form. It is also argued that the values of interaction associated with those

technologies co-opt special meaning in democratic organizations through resonations

with democratic values, like interaction and participation. The enmeshments of

cooptative properties combined with informal and formal networks that operate with

Follett‘s circular orders construct in the democratic landscape construct a unique

organizational form.

The organizational form that emerges with new interactive Internet technologies is a

hybrid form between that of hierarchical Weberian bureaucracy and a flat network. It is a

Nexus. The government Nexus is a primary convener for information and knowledge,

backed by some of the command and control structures of a Weberian bureaucracy and

subject to the push or cooptative forces of technology but a beneficiary of innovation that

arises from the informal organizations nee networks that form around the government

backbone. It is housed on the structure of e-government, but uniquely constructed around

the architecture of i-government.

21

BUREAUCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY ENACTMENT

The seminal work on government organizations and e-government, or the introduction of

electronic systems into government organizations, is Building the Virtual State:

Information Technology and Institutional Change by Jane E. Fountain. In her book,

Fountain discusses the nature of bureaucratic organizations and methods for adoption of

information technology. She develops a model for the digitization of government

organizations which she terms government organization ―enactment‖ of information

technology. As part of her enactment model, she outlines a process for information

technology adoption and the expected outcomes for the organization of government.

Several secondary works have expanded on or refuted her theoretical model of

government enactment of information technology and the resultant effects for the

government organization.

In her book, Fountain lays out the expected effects to the organization of implementing

information systems as part of e-government. Her foundational principles rest on the

Weberian definition of bureaucracy. In Weberian bureaucracy, jurisdictional units are

subject to law and administrative rules. The activities of these units are carried out as a

series of official duties by those who have the authority to administer commands. Both

authority to give commands and commands are distributed in a consistent and stable

manner. When these elements of authority and commands fall within a jurisdictional

unit, Weber terms it a bureaucratic form. When executed in an office, within the office

exists a hierarchy that dictates a system of superior and subordinate among personnel.

The office is governed by a strict set of consistent, stable rules that is comprehensive and

exhaustive (Weber 1991). Fountain relates Weberian bureaucracy to the command and

22

control organizational structure and claims that it is this structure that supports the

government system.

Fountain notes that there are criticisms of the Weberian model. Specifically, she cites

research by Richard Cyert and James March, researchers of firm behaviors, that

determines that individual actors pursue their own interests outside of the organizational

goal or mission (Cyert and March 1963). She also notes that these individual behaviors

do not interrupt the politics of the bureaucracy. And, she brings in the counter –

theoretical idea that firms are known not to always follow the rules (Wilson 1989). She

notes that, although there are some counter-arguments, with few additions or

modifications, the Weberian Bureaucracy is representative of the Bureaucracy of the 20th

Century and of the Industrial Age (Fountain 2001a, 51). She then outlines the qualities

that will change in a bureaucracy as new information technologies are adopted.

As bureaucracies digitize, Fountain predicts that that systems of information will

overtake the systems of people in the organization, power hierarchies will cease to exist.

Teams, comprised of members that are multi-skilled and who multi-task, will arise that

carry out the work of the bureaucracy via electronic means. Information will be stored an

accessible, able to be transmitted instantaneously. The coding rules of the information

system will dictate the rules of the organization and data and information activities and

processes, as well as interaction with fellow employees and citizens will occur in real-

time. The command and control structure will be reduced to the configuration of the

information system which underlies it (Fountain 2001a, 60-64). She considers this model

a model of the market and opposes it to the model of Weberian hierarchy.

23

Table 2.1 contains Jane Fountain‘s comparison of Weberian and of Virtual

Bureaucracies.

Table 2.1. Jane Fountain’s Comparison of Weberian and Virtual Bureaucracies

Elements of a Weberian Bureaucracy Elements of a Virtual Bureaucracy

Functional differentiation, precise division

or labor, clear jurisdictional boundaries

Information structured using information

technology rather than people;

organizational structure based on

information rather than people

Hierarchy of offices and individuals Electronic and informal communications;

teams carry out the work and make

decisions

Files, written documents, staff maintain

and transmit files

Digitized files in flexible form, maintained

and transmitted electronically using

sensors, bar codes, transponders, hand-held

computers; chips record, store, analyze, and

transmit data; systems staff maintain

hardware, software, telecommunications

Employees are neutral, impersonal,

attached to a particular office

Employees are cross-functional,

empowered; jobs limited not only by

expertise but also by the extent and

sophistication of computer mediation

Office system of general rules, standard

operating procedures, performance

programs

Rules embedded in applications and

information systems; an invisible, virtual

structure

Slow processing time due to batch

processing, delays, lags, multiple handoffs

Rapid or real-time processing

Long cycles of feedback and adjustment Constant monitoring and updating of

feedback; more rapid or real-time

adjustment possible

(Fountain 2001a, 61)

She notes that the expectation of information systems implementation is to disrupt the

command and control structure of traditional government. And, although it had not yet

24

come into vogue, her model of the virtual state is much like the models of later

organizational theorists who predict a network model of organization that was expected

to rise with the digitization of organizations. In a network organizational model,

command structures are flat as power is distributed among the total work force.

Employees are multi-talented and can take on a variety of tasks and the organization

relies on the rules of the underlying information system to guide organization activity and

behavior. A network organization model is very similar to Fountain‘s virtual state. To

test her idea of the introduction of information systems transformation of bureaucracy to

virtual state, she develops a model of technology enactment.

TECHNOLOGY ENACTMENT

Fountain‘s goal in developing an analytic framework to understand the underlying

qualities of transitioning to the virtual state arose from her desire to detail her primary

assumption that individuals and institutions would enact new information systems and

that that enactment would result in a virtual state. Fountain does not believe that

organizations will adopt information systems in a manner that results in a flat, networked

environment. Rather, she assumes that within that enactment—in the state current to her

research—the rules, routines, and norms, along with the power infrastructure, would be

reproduced in the information systems adopted and enact a virtual bureaucracy. Fountain

suggests a process by which organizations become virtual organizations. She also

suggests that over time, and with the influences of exogenous forces, agencies will

eventually transition to a virtual state that is a more networked space. Her propositions

for observing the transition to the virtual state include:

25

Proposition 1: Government agencies will resist the potential for dramatic efficiency gains

if those gains translate into loss of resources (budget and personnel) for the agency.

Proposition 2: Federal interagency networks will be difficult to build and maintain

because the formal institutions of the federal government reward agency-centered

activities and discourage cross-agency activities.

Proposition 3: Agencies lack resources for learning to use information technology.

Proposition 4: Intergovernmental and public-private networks will over-shadow cross

agency information technology based networks because the institutional context favors

those arrangements more readily than cross-agency federal networks.

Proposition 5: Agencies are likely to focus reform efforts on constituents, or ―customers,‖

who are also potential or actual strategic allies in the appropriations process.

Proposition 6: The nature of changes necessary to develop a network will affect the

probability of success of the effort.

Proposition 7: The culture, history, mental models, and standard practices of a policy

domain or agency will affect technology enactment—that is, whether and how an agency

uses the Internet (Fountain 2001a, 102-103).

Within the technology enactment framework, agency structural and power shifts occur

largely due to unintended, subtle changes that occur as technology is adopted. However,

these shifts are prompted by the users of technology and their use of technology, not the

opposite where technology dictates the power shift. Exogenous forces affect the

organization that encourages technology adoption and use of technology affects

operations, but it is the organization that enacts technology. And, the technology is

reflective of the organization.

Fountain applies the technology enactment model to a series of case studies, including an

analysis of the Department of Defense. In her case studies, she finds that that early e-

26

governance still resembles the old command and control structures and has done very

little to ―break down the silos of government information (Fountain 2001a).‖ The

bureaucratic form holds and the information systems reflect that bureaucratic pattern. In

a later study, Andrew Chadwick agrees with Fountain‘s assessment. Chadwick argues

that the core of e-government lies in the focus on providing transactional services and

that the failure to create cross-agency coordination lies in the fragmentation of process

and products. Cross-agency collaboration is not used as a service provision mechanism

(Chadwick 2006). The bureaucratic, hierarchical system has translated online into

transactional information systems.

Fountain could not anticipate the full command and control gesture of the Congress of the

United States in coordination with the President of the United States in mandating

adoption of information systems across agencies—as occurred in 2002, just one year after

Fountain‘s book was published. Had a major command gesture not come from both

directive bodies of government, Fountain‘s model would more than likely be emblematic

of the actual progression of e-government, were there a progression, in which the power

struggles, rules, and operations of agencies played out in their information systems.

However, with the brute force push to agencies to adopt information systems, agencies

did adopt streamlined and consistent information systems. These systems were formed

largely in relationship to their business information system counterparts. And, while they

remained transactional in nature, in part that nature reflected the processes of information

systems in the business world, which were used to conduct business transactions.

The inclusion of Fountain‘s work is not suggestive of a research product wherein a test of

her technology enactment model or a test of i-government using her model is conducted.

27

Instead, Fountain‘s work offers an idea of the extremes of organizational structure that

were present at the beginning of e-government. Researchers predicted that with the

introduction of information systems, agencies would lose their hierarchical form and

become flat network operations. Much discussion occurred around the idea of the flat

organization and managing within it (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 and Agranoff 2007).

Fountain includes an entire section in her book where she addresses the ideas that there

may be a form outside of the hierarchical form and not quite the market form on which

the virtual state is based. But no model organizational existed then or exists now for that

form. It is a goal of this research to explore that form as related to the shift from e-

government to i-government.

Additionally, it should be noted that until Fountain put forward her theory that

organizations enacted technology and that technology did not enact organizations,

thoughts existed that organizational form would be dictated by the information system of

the organization. Fountain‘s work set the precedent and the benchmark for thinking

about the digitization of government organizations, the adoption of technology and the

effects to organizational form. And, acknowledge the idea that bureaucracies have some

independent agency and form that exists outside of their technology. Technology is

representative of the agency and the constituency, not the contrary.

The second work of interest for this dissertation is Governance and Information

Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government. In this work,

several thinkers of information technology incorporation into government, including Jane

Fountain, posit the idea of a shift from e-government to i-government. This shift accepts

that information systems have been adopted by government and offers glimpses of the

28

constructs for the shift from e-government to i-government as seen in the flow of

information within government, between government, and between government and

citizens (Mayer-Schonberger and Lazer 2007). It is an argument of this dissertation that

information flows of government that are associated with e-government are changing

with i-government from a transactional flow to an interactive flow. That change in the

nature of the flow of information has implications for the organizations of government.

Additionally, explored within this dissertation are the change in value constructs for

transactional information flows and interactive information flows.

Tertiary works that build on or off of Fountain‘s work include Public Information

Technology and E-Governance: Managing the Virtual State by G. David Garson, Digital

Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance by Darrell M. West, Governing

by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector by Stephen Goldsmith and William D.

Eggers, and to a lesser extent Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education,

Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy by William D. Eggers.

These tertiary works emphasize the idea of government as operating within a flat network

where power disruptions are the norm and where networks of influence matter more than

the command and control structure of the bureaucracy. Efficiencies are brought about by

technology to clear away the barriers of the old command and control structure and there

is an idea of the possibility of citizens becoming every day inter-actors in the business of

government. In many respects, the daily operations of government become democratic

activity. And management happens by developing networks within and across agencies

and citizens to complete the tasks of government. The decision making is flatter and the

systems of import are the underlying information systems of organizations.

29

Newly emerging works that are also associated with i-government include Governance

and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government

and Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy

Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Governance and Information Technology is a

series of essays that talk about the end of the e-government era and the beginning of the i-

government era. For the most part, authors note that e-government did much to make

governments more efficient and reduce the costs of service provision, but very little to

increase responsiveness and participation in government or support a participatory

Internet architecture. Then they begin to discuss a path forward where information and

knowledge exchange over multiple devices and with an emphasis on usability and open

source will lead the path to i-government. They note that the utopian vision if Internet as

a direct method for democracy is limited by the unwillingness of agencies to produce web

spaces that do much more than perpetuate the mission of the agency or the goal of service

provision. They find hope in new interactive technologies in that they will increase

information flows and knowledge generation between government and citizen.

In Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy

Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful Beth Simone Noveck introduces the idea of

collaborative democracy. Through the lens of the Peer-to-Patent project, a collaborative

partnership between New York University and the United States Patent and Trade Office

to incorporate citizens in the patent review process, Noveck displays the power of

citizens engaging with the government and using their professional skills to achieve a

better outcome for government. These new works are concerned with exploiting

interactive Internet tools to benefit the state and enhance democracy. These benefits

30

relate to increased knowledge creation and flow and the development of uncommon

partnerships to achieve goals of governance. While they do not specifically address the

organizational structure of i-government, they do give insight into how the government

employs new interactive Internet tools and how the products of that employment play out

within the organization.

PHASING IN E-GOVERNMENT, ITERATION INTO I-GOVERNMENT

Jungwoo Lee, in his ―10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative

meta-synthesis‖ introduces a conceptual framework for the phases of technology

adoption involved in transitioning to e-government. Lee developed his framework by

consolidating ten years of proposed e-government transition models from various

authors. Two important themes run throughout the literature on the phases of transition

to e-government. The first is that of the role of the citizen in the transition. The second

is the staged process of transition phases—staged in that one process must occur before

the next. In the following diagram, Lee portrays the relationship between the operational

and technological and citizen and service themes of e-government in relationship to their

place in the stages of development of e-government.

31

Figure 2.1 E-government Transition Themes

Source: (Lee 2010)

In his model, the agency adoption of technology occurs in tandem with citizen use and

incorporation in the process. In all phases, the citizen activity follows the technology

adoption and the citizen and agency are subject to the transition process—each

acclimating and responding to the phased system. While this is an extreme simplification

of the transition process, it highlights one specific quality that differs greatly with i-

government. In i-government, the citizens and employees of the agency not only adopt

the technology in a cyclical fashion, they adopt it in an iterative fashion—meaning that

the citizens and agency participants can give feedback on and even create data and

information, even technologies as the organization transitions to i-government. The

process of transition is one in which agencies and citizens are fully engaged in the

development of technology and in the adoption process.

32

The second major difference of the transition process to e-government is the staged

phasing of transition. Lee presents a consolidated diagram of models of e-government

process proposed over the last ten years. Across models, transition was staged in nature,

as shown in the following graphic. In the left branch of the diagram (Figure 2.2), Lee

presents the perspective of the citizens. In the processes of implementation of e-

government, citizens perceive four different stages. Those stages include interaction,

where the government presents information about information systems being adopted,

assimilation where citizens are able to access information about an agency from an

agency website, participation where citizens can apply for and receive services, and

involvement where citizens are able to engage in some rule-making activity. From the

government perspective, the first stage of technology implementation involves

identifying software and systems components that can be integrated across agencies or

across existing systems, the second phase involves streamlining systems for consolidation

and systemization of technology, the third phase incorporates new functionalities like

web fronted databases into websites, and the fourth phase incorporates citizen feedback

mechanisms.

33

Figure 2.2 Phases of E-Government

Source: (Lee 2010)

At the end of the phase structure, the organization has transitioned fully into e-

government from a technological and citizen perspective. Lingering items like culture

change for the complete structure may be lagged slightly, but it is expected that culture

will catch up to technology and will have driven some of the technology adoption. The

gradual, but consistent adoption process will push agencies toward the endpoint.

For i-government, the transition process will be significantly different from e-

government. Because i-government technologies do not necessarily have a known

business value, like the cost-benefit and increased efficiency and effectiveness associated

with e-government, and because much of the technology associated with i-government is

34

not adopted consistently or systematically, many more organizational cultural cues and

expertise come into play. Adoption occurs nearly exclusively as Fountain would suggest

through individual actor motivation, but as stated previously also involves iteration. Each

agency may go through Lee‘s transition process several times, mostly associated with

new technology incorporation, before making a complete transition to i-government.

And some agencies, even with a mandate to adopt technologies, will only superficially

adopt technologies into the organization until those technologies or the interaction

associated with the technologies become essential to achieving agency missions and

goals. In this respect, the first order of change is a cultural change. Indeed, when

initially introduced in government, i-government and the push for adoption of interactive

technologies was couched in the culture shift to Open Government.

Where the primary organizational literature of e-government relates to technology

adoption and systems changes, the primary literature associated with the early stages of i-

government relates to impacts to organizations due to the nature of the technology

adopted. At the core, as adopted at the level of the federal government in the United

States, the shift from e-government to i-government is a shift from systems adoption to

concept adoption. Explored in the following section are some of the changes in

governance concepts that may arise in the shift from e-government to i-government.

THE VALUE CONSTRUCT

For any technology adoption to be sustainable and for agencies to buy into adoption,

value must be found in the technology. Jane Fountain looks into the early adoption of

35

electronic technologies and cites these technologies as being used to communicate

messages and static information across organizations, which is viewed as being motivated

by the ability to increase the responsiveness of government or increase the power of the

state (Fountain 2001a). As the government provides information, it is perceived as being

more responsive to citizens and as it becomes an information source people turn to for

expertise, it gains power. The benefits to the state are not only found in increasing

effectiveness of general operations, but there is a return in customer service valuation and

in state power. These customer service and state power gains are value characteristics of

both e-government and i-government. Power returns to the state are an intangible effect

of technology implementation that is difficult to evaluate.

In e-government, because technology is used to structure the conversations and

transactions within government and from government-to-citizen and government-to-

business, success is most often measured by observing lowered transaction costs or

increases in production chains (Fountain 2001a, see also Garson 2006, and West 2005).

By moving some of the services of government online, like provision of information,

provision of tax forms, applications for services and licenses, benefits estimations, some

human resources functions like applications and basic testing, some training sessions, and

other services, the costs associated with those services being offered in the physical world

are lessened given the use of large databases and other media services. These cost

decreases can often be observed in real budget inputs and outputs. Thus, as systems were

adopted a justification of adoption was that these cost saving would produce value for the

government organization.

36

Gunasekaran, Ngai, and McGaughey argue that there are several categories in which

evaluation of implementation of information technology systems in organizations fall.

Some of these categories include cost-benefit, strategic impacts to organizations,

operational performance of the system, outcomes of the system—both tangible and

intangible, and financial inputs and outputs of the system (Gunasekaran, Ngai, and

McGaughey 2008). The financial inputs relate to decreased transaction costs for citizens

and decreased service costs for government. Cost savings are observed tangibly in

budgetary statements, while the intangible citizen service is evaluated in customer service

evaluation and in case studies of effects to citizens of easier access to government

services. They also comment that agencies construct justifications for systems

implementation by identifying increases in agency effectiveness at service provision and

efficiencies with information management given certain information systems.

Richard Heeks argues that benchmarks be created around phases of information systems

development and that in the evaluation stage, the ability of the government to meet the

information and service demands of the citizenry is a major component of systems

success and that use data provides a glimpse into understanding success at meeting public

demand. Others argue that access, service provision quality, and systems sustainability

are primary components of information systems value. There is no clear evaluation

strategy to determine the value of e-government, but it is understood that there will be

increases in service value and decreases in transaction cost with the implementation of e-

government systems (Fountain 2001a).

In i-government, very little is known about how value will be calculated. To some

extent, measures of efficiency and effectiveness for organizations are important as a

37

budget justification for introducing and maintaining the information technologies

associated with i-government. Martin Eppler argues that information quality will be a

marker of value for i-government. He defines information quality as ―a condition where

the content and its media provide high value to the information producers, administrators,

and consumers. Information quality means providing the right information, in the right

format, at the right time, at the right costs, to the right people (Eppler 2007, 244).‖ He

argues that if information quality is perceived as low, among other issues, trust in the

organization and use of the organization‘s online services decrease. Individuals trying to

use information that is not clear, incorrect, or that is not of high quality may get frustrated

and insist on using only those resources found in the physical world, may burden the

organization with calls and other service requests that could be satisfied via an online

format, and possibly retaliate by binging litigation against the agency. Each of these

activities increases costs to the agency in service provision and possibly legal fees.

Eppler argues that information quality can be observed through customer service surveys,

technology usability sessions, and focus groups where questions related to website

information usability and value are administered (Eppler 2007, 242-243).

In addition to information quality, value is also expected to be derived in the provision of

tools that promote usability of government data and information (Tornatzky and Klein

1982). As e-government was introduced the concept applied to adoption of information

systems by government agencies (West 2005). As i-government is introduced, the

concept has begun to apply to the data and information presented on government agency

websites. Tools to manipulate and visualize data and information are often presented in

tandem with data and information to make it easier for citizens and customers to access.

In addition to usability, the Obama administration has identified innovation as a value

38

product of i-government. He houses an innovation gallery of technology products

associated with i-government on the main White House web space. This innovation

occurs within and outside of the government body using data and information provided

by the government (Chopra and Chopra and Vein 2011). There are currently no value

metrics for innovation that are used by the government.

E-GOVERNMENT, I-GOVERNMENT, AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

At the same time, as transactional information systems were incorporated into

government, the concept of citizen as customer arose. Government agencies were

encouraged to adopt the citizen ―client‖ or ―customer‖ model of effective management

practice found in the private sector into government organizations (Fountain 2001b). The

business argument for implementation of information systems was encouraged to derive

more customer value for citizens as citizens would be able to access their government

from anywhere at any time, to gain information and to conduct the business of being a

citizen. The business of the citizen is usually considered to be applying for licenses and

benefits, filing tax forms, requesting information and data specific to benefits and

services, paying fees, applying for grants, and transacting citizen specific information. As

the use of information systems spread and as the systems were sold as citizen service

systems and as the functionality of the system was primarily transaction, the concepts of

government-to-citizen, citizen as customer arose.

The concept of citizen as customer received criticism as there began to be a perception of

striping of the democratic relationship between citizens and government to one of pure

39

transaction. In his article ―Is a Citizen a Customer?,‖ Joseph Pegnato argues that the

citizen as customer concept is useful in promoting responsiveness and service, but that

that the concept is limited in government as government organizations are founded in

Public Law and not in ―entrepreneurial market concepts‖ (Pegnato 1997). Brewer notes

that narrowly defining the citizen role to customer may deprive citizens of the due

process accorded to them in public law (Brewer 2007). He also notes that accountability

as defined in business terms is far narrower than when considered in terms of the

government-citizen relationship. The citizen as customer concept associated with e-

government received criticism because it suggested a relationship between citizen and

government as grounded in entrepreneurial activity rather than in public law.

The issue of utmost concern to organizations and researchers was that business concepts

had begun to override democratic values. In the early days of e-government, the Internet

was understood to break down the hierarchies of government. This elimination of

organizational hierarchies was due largely to increased access for citizens to information

at a time and place convenient to them (West 2005). With the Internet, citizens were no

longer required to seek information and services at a time dictated by a government

agency. They were free to access services and information unfettered by the

machinations of the bureaucracy. In the early days of e-government, this freedom from

the hierarchy of government was considered a new level of participation with government

(Fountain 2001a). The ability to transact in a service capacity had become associated with

the democratic act of participation. In Code, Lawrence Lessig notes that the design of

online spaces favors consumers over citizens and business interests over citizen interests

(Lessig 1999). This transformation of the concept of citizen as customer and service

transaction as participation was not the citizen participation anticipated.

40

In i-government, role of business transactions and citizen as customer persists. But there

is an additional layer added to the business relationship of citizen and government. In i-

government, the citizen becomes a collaborator with government to assist in achieving

the business of government. The goal of the citizen-government collaborative

relationship is to improve the effectiveness of government (Orsazg 2009). The business

relationship persists, but takes on new form. That form is derived from the customer

relationship that businesses developed with consumers as interactive technologies like

wikis became more prevalent in information systems. Crowdsourcing, as the

phenomenon is called, was introduced to garner a multidisciplinary perspective and

multi-layered solution to a given problem or idea of business (Howe 2009). Essentially,

companies would post a call for a certain product or post a problem they were facing to

an Internet site where anyone could respond to the call, post research in support of an

idea, and eventually be a part of the solution. In business, there is usually a product

developed or a monetary profit that arises from these crowdsouring activities. In fact,

they are often used as customer demand gauges and act as mechanism to perpetuate the

business-customer relationship.

The concept of calling the crowds or organizing without organizing promoted the finding

of experts and expert knowledge in uncommon places (Shirkey 2008). Eventually, a

series of challenges that offered monetary rewards were put in place so that an incentive

structure to garner the best ideas and people became a part of the crowdsoucing

architecture. In i-government, the government engages in similar activities wherein they

make a call to citizens to share their expertise with the government to help address a

specific issue or problem, and sometimes to achieve a government goal or mission.

41

Equally, parameters for incentives programs have also been established. In some

respects, this crowdsourcing could be considered democratic participation—citizens

volunteering their services on behalf of the government. Democracy involves a long

history of volunteerism. But, in other aspects, crowdsourcing can be construed as

extending the entrepreneurial business customer relationship.

It was expected that e-government would allow more opportunities for citizens to

participate in government decision process via an online format in ways that differed

from participation in the physical world. In 1994, Steven Clift created the term ―e-

democracy.‖ He defines e-democracy as, ―E-Democracy is the use of information and

communications technologies and strategies by ―democratic sectors‖ within the political

processes of local communities, states/regions, nations and on the global stage.‖ He

defines ―democratic sectors‖ as government, media, the citizenry, elected officials, and

civic spaces, and ―political processes‖ as provision of information as related to citizen

communication, political activity, and campaigns (Clift 2003). These political processes

are above and beyond the processes that citizens would encounter in the physical world in

that citizens could gain access to any process online at a time and place convenient to

them. The conceptual outcome of the online environment is to place the citizen in the

center of civic life so that government decisions are improved, trust in government is

increased, and stakeholders are involved in new ways of meeting public challenges (Clift

2003).

However, when democracy is discussed in relationship to e-government, it is discussed in

terms of the ability of citizens to vote online or the ability of citizens to email or connect

with public agencies through an electronic format. Darrell West tells readers a story of

42

―direct‖ democracy that occurs online. The Mayor of Baltimore was debating with a

local artist over which color to paint the Hamilton bridge. The mayor wished for a Kelly

green bridge, where the artist wished for a rust red-brown color. The mayor decided to

take the decision to the people and called for an online vote to determine the color of the

bridge. Over 5,000 citizens cast votes to decide the bridge color. Forty-eight percent of

people voted for Kelly green and 52 percent voted for rust red-brown. The mayor

conceded his loss and painted the bridge the rust red-brown (West 2005). Through an

online medium, the citizens had the opportunity to make a decision for the city that they

would not have had the opportunity to make otherwise.

While there are similar examples of this kind of ―direct‖ democracy, these examples are

the exception and not the norm. The vast majority of ―participation‖ that occurs in

association with e-government consist of e-mails to government officials and the ability

to comment on spaces like Regulations.gov where citizens can enter comments that are

recorded in legislation as public commentaries. In his book, the Myth of Digital

Democracy, Matthew Hindman observes that the political voice of the people is largely

dominated by media interests and He also notes that this occurrence is due largely to the

architecture of the underlying system. Which echoes Jane Fountain‘s finding that

information systems were not gaining traction in breaking down the silos of government.

In WikiGovernment: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy

Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful, Beth Noveck argues that in the 21st Century,

given the availability of information technologies that are social in nature and that can

connect multiple people with varied expertise and given the complexity of the problems

facing the world today, the perpetuation of legitimate democracy and good governance

43

require collaborative democracy (Noveck 2009). She argues that democracy requires a

shift in attitude from of the people, by the people for the people to, of the people, by the

people, with the people. She calls for a resurgence of the citizenry, using their everyday

skills and expertise to assist in the perpetuation of government and the nation. This

collaborative participation is a form of civic action on behalf of the state. She also argues

that this participation will allow for the citizenry to be involved in the policy making

process as individual expertise plays a role in that process. Seemingly, with the advent of

new social technologies and a shift toward i-government, maturation in actual democracy

and democratic participation is expected. This transition of the role of citizen to

democratic collaborator is not studied within this research body, but it is an area of

interest that affects both the organizations of government and governance form.

<ALT>INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ACTIVISM </ALT>

There is an additional body of work that is associated with democratic activity on the

Internet. In e-government, this activity is not typically understood to be positive nor is

the government typically understood to be a sponsor of the activity; it is assumed that the

government would be a recipient of or subject to the activity and have to respond to it.

The activity is Hacktivism or Internet activism through hacking activities. Hackitivism

involves hacking into the code of a given website or information system to disrupt the

service of the website to limit or stop the information system from processing for a

specific political purpose. The Wikileaks event is the most prominent recent example of

hacktivism. To execute the Wikileaks event, Julian Assange organized a community of

hackers and a community of activists to break into government and corporation

44

information systems to steal classified data and information. He then posted this

information on a secondary web space where anyone in the world with an Internet

connection could access it. Through his hacktivity, he compromised the security and

information process of business and government to make a political point.

There is an entire field of information and Internet security studies that is concerned with

hacktivism, hacking, cyber terrorism, cyber warfare, and personal and national

information privacy. That body of work is not included in this research. But, it is

important to note that in current i-government associated activities, the government is

joining forces with the hacking communities to assist in achieving strategic goals of

government. The Department of State has partnered with iHub, a technology company

that is comprised of hackers and other information technology specialists, to execute

Apps4Africa. Part of the goal of Apps4Africa is to assist in developing innovative code

to solve social and development issues in Africa. Hackers assist in code construction and

destruction to identify weaknesses in code associated with websites where services are

offered. Equally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration partnered with

Google, Microsoft, The World Bank, and Yahoo! to convene hackers from around the

world to hack for good as part of Random Hacks of Kindness. As part of the project,

participants are given a task of hacking a major critical system that might be weakened

during a natural disaster or attack. Partners of the project hold 24 hour hacking contests in

which hacker teams and individuals try to break the code of the critical infrastructure.

The winner is given a monetary prize and then helps develop the counter code to address

the infrastructure coding weaknesses. In cases like these, the government is harnessing

activity once thought to be detrimental and using it to achieve the goals of government.

It is s shift from the thinking associated with e-government.

45

Hacktivism is often accompanied by the organizing of individuals through the Internet to

arrange action and affect political outcomes. Early thinkers in e-government imagined a

world in which the Internet opened up enormous opportunities for activism, both

hacktivism and political movements that would start online but appear in the physical

world. Howard Rheingold writes of entire societies that would exist in pure online

format and communities that do, executing all of the functions of normal offline life

online (Rheingold 1993). Rheingold documents the use of technology during the so

called ―Battle in Seattle,‖ when protesters coordinated online and through cell phones to

protest a meeting of the World Trade Organization. The original protest was comprised of

a few protesters, but through the use of electronic media, protest activity spread across

the globe and full-scale protest movement descended upon Seattle (Rheingold 2002).

The Battle occurred in 1999 and set huge expectations for future political activity that

could be coordinated online.

A similarly large movement, the Zapatista movement, where in protest to globalization

and other infringements on their rights and land, Mexican Zapatistas used a coding action

known as FloodNet to block any posting of President Zedillo‘s website helped contribute

to the practice of ―electronic civil disobedience (Meikle 2002).‖ Klang documents the use

of e-mail bombing by organizations like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Oxfam,

Friends of the Earth, and others who overloaded government inboxes with emails about

their causes and several denial of service attacks that knocked out websites subject to

protest (Klang 2004). McCaughey and Ayers expand on the expectations voiced in

Rheingold‘s work with a series of case studies on various kinds of cyber activism. They

include stories written by several researchers of activism to promote gay rights, fights to

46

increase awareness of toxins and environmental issues, and action against the World

Bank (McCaughey and Ayers, eds. 2003). Like many thinkers at the time, they conclude

that the Internet does offer increased opportunity for activism and political movement.

However, until the recent uprisings in Egypt and Libya, it was thought that the grandiose

political movements that were possible through the Internet would not manifest. After

some initial movement like the Battle in Seattle and the Zapatista, action became more

localized and less publicized. In an early study Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age

of the Internet, Kevin Hill notes that while the mode of interaction has changed, politics

have not. The Internet simply provides a new mechanism for communicating political

thought, but not necessarily action (Hill 1998). In his recent book, The Net Delusion: The

Dark Side of Internet Freedom, Evgeny Morozov writes of the expansive and

democratizing power of political activism thought to be possible and the failure of the

power expansion to reach the people. Morozov goes so far as to suggest that the opposite

is true. He argues that the subject of political activism is actually the citizenry and that

political rights have been limited because of the presence of the Internet (Morozov 2011).

One needs only to remember the terrorist attack of Al-Qaeda against the United States on

September 11, 2001 and consider the vast power afforded by the resultant Patriot Act of

the government to monitor and subdue citizen behavior online to become sympathetic to

Morozov‘s observations.

Earl and Kimport provide a counter argument that social media and the increasing

prevalence of social media will provide new means and methods for activism (Earl and

Kimport 2011). That activism may not take on the form of political overthrows of

government, but it can be used in collective bargaining and collective action, to quickly

47

communicate needs, outcomes, and goings on of political activities, even organizational

activities to organize a response. The key is that for new political and organizational

actors, social technologies and media are embedded into the social construct of leadership

and the organizing process (Earl and Kimport 2011, 177-179). Thus, regardless of its

role, interactive Internet technologies play a role in social organizing and activism. The

use of social media and tools associated with i-government are becoming part of the norm

of political and non-political activities in ways that both governments and businesses

must respond to and employ.

In Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-Making in a Time of War,

Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes, Elizabeth Losh presents studies

from more than a decade of e-government and activism research and comments that

regardless of technology as governments cross the media-maker and citizen service

provider line, they do so in a manner that preserves the power of the state. Losh argues

that this constant attention to the preservation of the power of the state actually inhibits

meaningful interaction that citizens might enjoy with the state (Losh 2009). Seemingly,

Internet technologies are as limiting in their use as they are expanding. In the case of i-

government, it is expected that an expansion of the power of citizens, certainly increased

engagement with the state, will be afforded by new technologies. But, if the precedent of

e-government holds, that power expansion to citizens may come with equal power

expansion of the state.

48

MIND THE GAP

Problems associated with e-government and the federal organization relate largely to

citizen access to computers and the Internet. Lisa Servon, in Bridging the Digital Divide,

notes that with the digitization of governmental services, large portions of the population

are left without the ability to access services and are not involved in any participation that

occurs online. She identifies several populations related to race, gender, education,

income, age, and gender that would possibly be excluded from service provision and

participation opportunities. In Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty

and the Internet Worldwide Pippa Norris, a political scientist at Harvard, observes gaps in

freedom and democracy in countries that do and do not have success with implementing

information technologies into government. She finds that as information systems are

adopted, countries become freer and more democratic. She also finds acceleration of

human and political development among nations that provide some level of citizens

services online as compared to those that do not—indicating that service gaps decrease

overall with the implementation of information systems. Both Sevron and Norris explore

options for bridging the digital divide.

Time has taken care of many of the issues associated with digital divide. Information

technologies are fairly ubiquitous and several creative and innovative methods for

connectivity have been developed. With i-government, the problem of digital divide

takes on two new faces; 1) the ability to access web spaces through multiple devices and

with varied user capacities, 2) the problem of small worlds. In addition to lingering

issues of basic access, the rise of multiple devices forces designers of information

systems to consider how to deliver content to varied devices. Ostensibly citizens should

49

be able to access government information and services and engage with the government

through interactive technologies via cell phone, electronic reader, tablet device, and

computer. This access requires consideration of applications for data, or one stop real-

time data and information sources, as well as interfaces that adapt to multiple device

displays. Considerations for accessing real-time data and information and the

implications to the organization must also be considered.

And as the government may respond to multiple devices in i-government, it will also

have to respond to multiple content providers. The nature of most interactive information

technologies like wikis is to accumulate and maintain a community of contributors that

collaborate to develop some outcome. These communities are developed around an

interest or area of expertise. Additionally, architectural links are designed to include and

exclude certain partners and participants. Both limitations due to architecture and

limitations due to content area create what is known as a small world. In a small world,

exclusivity is bestowed on those who conform to the architecture and to the method of

content provision in a manner that is acceptable to the community. And reliance chains

are created among those that become leaders or experts which allows for content that is

subject to ―group think‖ and bully think. Policies and architectures of i-government with

contribute to the development or limitation of small worlds.

An additional branch of study that has intersected with i-government is that of the digital

generation. Early texts like Growing Up Digital and Grown Up Digital by Don Tapscott

and Born Digital Palfrey and Gasser focus on how the Internet plays out in the lives of

younger people—specifically generation Y. They observe that younger generations do

not know a world without the Internet and without information technology. This life of

50

connectedness sets expectations that government will be connected and expectations that

government will use the technologies present in the marketplace to conduct citizen

communications and deliver services (Tapscott 1999 and 2008 and Palfrey and Gasser

2008). Additionally, for employees of i-government, these younger generations will want

to use their technology skills in the workplace. For i-government, potential generational,

educational, and experiential gaps may present within the government organization in

ways that are not related to the gaps of e-government.

In his book, Next Generation Democracy, Jared Duvall brings the generation discussion

of young people and technology to democracy and to government, the mentality of

service, and expectations of technology. He notes that Generation Y is not only more

civically minded than any other generation since the Great Depression, that they are also

more technologically minded. Younger generations serve more volunteer hours than

other generations and have the highest respect for government employees than 60 years

of generations before them (Duvall 2010). They trust government and they wish to

engage with government. And they are technologically savvy enough to wish to engage

with government through technology. They prefer systems like, open source systems to

proprietary systems—not only to engage with, but to develop from. The younger

generations are most likely to use government data and information combined with

interactive technologies to spur innovations within the organization of government and in

the private sector. The preferred method of access is open source—meaning that the

code behind projects is public code and can be used for multiple applications. Open

source and enthusiasm for government have implications for government information

systems and architectures and governance through interactive information technology.

51

FROM E-GOVERNMENT TO I-GOVERNMENT: THE EMERGING STRUCTURE

In his book, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and

Freedom, Yochai Benkler writes of the position of the world as being between the

Industrialized Age and the Information Age. The Industrial Age, Benkler claims, is built

upon the ideas of manufacturing and production. The Information Age is built upon the

ideas of knowledge creation and exchange. In the space between these two ages,

governments and citizens walk the economic line between production chains and

knowledge networks. Two very different organizational structures are part of these

worlds. The Industrial Age relies heavily on the vertical structure of production lines and

the Information Age relies heavily on networks. Government must work between and

bridge these worlds to ensure job creation and movement toward the new economy.

This move toward a new economy is motivated and brought about by the development of

new tools to create and share knowledge. The new economy and the development of the

Information Age will occur at the level of individuals and individual organizations

responding to the need to create and share knowledge for individual and organizational

success. The emerging organizational structure literature talks largely about governance

by and within networks. This form of organization is flat with no hierarchical power

system, comprised of pods of multi-disciplinary, multi-agency workers that connect to

the private sector to complete specific government tasks as requested or needed by the

people. The form of the organization mirrors that of the information systems that

underpin it. Flexibility and collaboration are prized over security and uniformity, and

trust in the government is placed at the core of effectiveness (Goldsmith and Eggers

2004). Networked government rests on the ability of government to leverage resources—

52

public, private, citizens, and ally—to achieve the tasks of government. The information

shared is specific to task and open to all involved in the task process (Argranoff 2007,

Goldsmith and Eggers 2004, and Eggers 2005). Similar differences exist in the

participation literature. Participation in I-government is associated with Crowdsourcing,

The Wisdom of Crowds, and Here Comes Everybody, where the goals of participation are

to help in policy creation, deliberation, and education process.

Both e-government and i-government deal with information sharing and tasking to

complete a mission or to engage in a transaction. However, the e-government structure is

associated with a transactional structure of that tasking and information sharing and the i-

government, network structure is associated with un-structuring and flattening that

tasking and information sharing. Neither structure, vertical and horizontal, supports i-

government or the development of i-government. In the article Government Data and the

Invisible Hand, four Princeton scholars, including nationally-known computer scientist

Edward Felten, argue:

If the next Presidential administration really wants to embrace the

potential of Internet-enabled government transparency, it should follow a

counter-intuitive but ultimately compelling strategy: reduce the federal

role in presenting important government information to citizens. Today,

government bodies consider their own websites to be a higher priority than

technical infrastructures that open up their data for others to use. We argue

that this understanding is a mistake. It would be preferable for government

to understand providing reusable data, rather than providing websites, as

the core of its online publishing responsibility (Robinson et al., 2008).

53

In an i-government, information becomes a central focus in eliciting participation with

the citizenry and in educating the public about policy and economic issues facing the

government and in collaborating with the people to address the issues of the nation. The

goal of producing data in accessible and useable formats is to secure citizen trust in the

government as a data and information source. Trust will be built as the government data

is used by the citizens and by watchdog and other organizations, which will allow

citizens the ability to not only access the data they need, but to filter out errant or

inappropriate data. The government will become the head in Chris Anderson‘s long tail

of data providers.

Figure 2.3 The Long Tail

Source: The Long Tail: www.thelongtail.com/conceptual.jpg

In the long tail, eighty percent of information and data is provided by twenty percent of

the content providers. As the government provides data and information that can be

54

trusted as a source for valuable information products and that serve as a platform for

innovation, citizens and partners will link to agencies and look to them as a source of

trusted information product and value. The agency will become a larger provider of the

information share. This role as trusted provider of information and tool to use that

information allows for greater service efficiencies and enhanced democratic interaction.

The nature of those efficiencies arises in the ability of citizens to access tools like

mapping to tools, weather information and tools, health information and tools, and others

to assist and communicate about local, state, and national issues of concern. For

example, during the California fires, local citizens used geo data provided by the United

States Geological Survey under the Department of Interior to communicate the location

of the fires and the availability of resources at that location so that services and resources

could be distributed more effectively. The government provided trusted information and

tools and through interaction of citizens with that information was also able to provide

more efficient services.

Equally, in the private sector, data provided by the government is beginning to prove

essential in the development of new business. The founders of Brightscope, for example,

mined government data associated with corporate assets and retirement accounts. They

discovered dramatic price variation in the fees paid to manage retirement accounts for

small businesses. Brightscope now has access to data on 90% of all corporate 401(k)

assets and a staff of 30 mining it for cost savings opportunities. The company is valued

at multi-millions of dollars. The government played a central role in the development of

private business by providing access to high quality and trusted data.

55

As the government interacts with citizens and as the combined content of government

and citizens is developed and the linking architecture of interaction is constructed,

increased authority with lie with the state. However, that power is not strictly vertical or

strictly horizontal. It is a blended structure that relies on the organizational response to

command and control prompts and the interaction of networks to execute the services and

missions of the agency. The governmental organization structure, brought about by an

increased focus on information sharing and collaboration and tools for supporting

cooperation and recognition of the state‘s central role in data, information, and

technology provision, as well as its interest in maintaining its own power, changes to a

form that allows for both acceptance of technology and adaption to technology through

interaction of information and data among employees and among agencies and citizens.

That form is a Nexus where the government organization is a primary convener for

information and knowledge, backed by some of the command and control structures of a

Weberian bureaucracy and subject to the push or cooptative forces of technology but a

beneficiary of innovation that arises from the informal organizations nee networks that

form around the government backbone.

56

Chapter 3: Laying Down the Law, the Structure of New Technology

Adoption

INTRODUCTION

Explored within this chapter is the idea of a shift from e-government toward i-

government and the nature of the implementation of interactive Internet technologies into

the government organization structure. Specifically questioned is the primary mode of

initiation into government, organic or more structured, of the technology. Also observed

are the nature and function of the technologies introduced and the status of interactive

technology development. Additionally provided in this chapter is the context and

backdrop for the inclusion and development of interactive internet technologies in

government.

OVERVIEW

Discussed in the first section of the chapter are the legislation, presidential directives, and

citizen and federal agency activities that set forth e-government and potentially i-

government efforts in the United States. Observed is the nature of adoption, technology

and other external forces push for adoption or consumer demand pull for adoption, of e-

government and i-government efforts. The findings suggest that e-government and i-

government occur largely due to the presence of new information technology in the

market place, the recognition of the technology to reach business or governance goals,

and a push for adoption by the executive levels of government for government agencies.

57

Also examined here are key elements of legislation and presidential directives that

indicate the intent of technology adoption—for more transactional or more interactive

purposes. Findings suggest that early e-government legislation established the

parameters and practices for the placing the business of government into an online

format. Later, legislation including the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and

Transparency Act and the 2009 Transparency and Open Government Directive prompted

an increased level of e-government by urging the adoption if better web site practices and

functionalities and introduced a new level of interaction with government that is

associated with i-government.

Finally, included in the chapter are the technology developments associated with i-

government and a discussion of the potential impacts and sustainability of the

technologies. The concluding remarks relate to policies and conditions relevant for

continued information technology developments and the potential impacts those

technologies may have on the organizations of government and in relationship to new

methods for interaction within the government and between the government and the

citizenry.

For the research herein, the federal government of the United States of America is the

primary unit of analysis. A description of the qualitative database developed to support

the research within this chapter is in Supplimental 3.4.

58

LAYING DOWN THE LAW

Two classic arguments for technology adoption relate to technology-push or demand-pull

in innovation. In the case that innovation occurs through technology push, the rate of

scientific knowledge and development determine the rate of innovation (Bush 1945). In

the case where innovation occurs through demand pull, market demand drives the

knowledge creation and development of technological innovation (Rosenberg 1969).

Both push and pull innovation processes can be present in the adoption of technology,

especially in the case of information technology adoption where multiple applications

and systems elements exist.

Government adoption of information technology has been prompted by push and pull

forces. In 2002, Congress set forth the e-Government Act of 2002. The Act establishes

the purpose and parameters of implementing e-government into the federal organization.

In the findings of the Act, Congress specifically sites the push factors of technology in

motivating the adoption of e-government practices. ―The use of computers and the

Internet is rapidly transforming societal interactions and the relationships among citizens,

private businesses, and the Government (PL 107-347).‖ They elaborate by recognizing

that use of information technologies has been unevenly spread among agencies with no

centralizing force to coordinate use efforts. Their justification for the Act was to

introduce a centralizing force and to push government adaptation to the business practices

being adopted at a rapid rate in the for-profit world.

In recognition of the need for coordinated efforts for adoption and of the value in

implementing new information systems into government, Congress and the President

59

passed the Act into law. The purpose of the Act or Public Law 107-347, was ―to enhance

the management and promotion of electronic Government services and processes…‖ The

primary provisions of the law were:

1) To provide effective leadership of Federal Government efforts to develop and

promote electronic Government services and processes by establishing an

Administrator of a new Office of Electronic Government within the Office of

Management and Budget.

2) To promote use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide

increased opportunities for citizen participation in Government.

3) To promote interagency collaboration in providing electronic Government

services, where this collaboration would improve the service to citizens by

integrating related functions, and in the use of internal electronic Government

processes, where this collaboration would improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of the processes.

4) To improve the ability of the Government to achieve agency missions and

program performance goals.

5) To promote the use of the Internet and emerging technologies within and across

Government agencies to provide citizen-centric Government information and

services.

6) To reduce costs and burdens for businesses and other Government entities.

7) To promote better informed decision making by policy makers.

8) To promote access to high quality Government information and services across

multiple channels.

9) To make the Federal Government more transparent and accountable.

10) To transform agency operations by utilizing, where appropriate, best practices

from public and private sector organizations.

11) To provide enhanced access to Government information and services in a manner

consistent with laws regarding protection of personal privacy, national security,

records retention, access for persons with disabilities, and other relevant laws (PL

107-347 2002).

The 72 page legislative document outlaying the E-Government Act contains the details

and timelines for implementing the Act. The Act establishes the personnel responsible

for carrying out the Act and sets up a system of Chief Information Officers for individual

agencies as well as a budget for implementation. The document is a practical outlay of

60

instructions for moving the business aspects of government into an online format. The

essential component of the Act is the direction for agencies and contractors to incorporate

Enterprise information systems into the federal government. Enterprise systems are large

databases that include web fronting so that citizens or government employees can input

data and export reports of information. The database, pictured below in Figure 3.1, is a

relational one that has the capacity to store and relate data tables across operation aspects

of an organization. That is, multiple components, such as the Manufacturing Resource

Planning (MRP) and Supply Chain Management (SCM) and other components depicted

in the large circle of the diagram, can input data into a large database. Once the data is

input, it is possible for an operator of the database to combine data input from multiple

components to create a multiple component data report.

Figure 3.1 Enterprise Database Conceptual Diagram

Source: Image Source: Enterprise Resource Planning System Solution: http://erpsystemsolution.com/.

Retrieved April 4, 2011.

It is also possible for multiple organizations to make inputs into and pull outputs from

the Enterprise system, but the data relationship is strictly an input-output operation as the

61

arrows in the diagram display. There are not opportunities for wiki-like collaboration

with or development of data through social media tools as there are with interactive data

management systems. The Enterprise system is business system with looped transactions

that do not invite participation outside of input and export of data and reports.

Eight of the 11 provisions of the Act deal directly with placing the business of

government into an online format. Only three; 1) providing increased opportunities for

citizen participation, 2) promoting better informed decision making by policy makers,

and 3) making the federal government more transparent and accountable deal with

engaging citizens in the e-government process. And, of those three only increasing

opportunities for citizen participation, hints at introducing technology for the purpose of

interaction between government and citizens. The majority of the law sets forth the

processes and standards for moving the services of the government into an online format.

Government agencies and implementing new information systems to change the business

practices of agencies are the target and the focus of the law.

In contrast, the Transparency and Open Government Directive, issued on January 21,

2009 at the beginning of the Obama administration contains three provisions. Those

provisions relate to transparency, participation, and collaboration. The provisions follow:

1) Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and

provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.

2) Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the

Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions.

3) Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans

in the work of their Government (Obama 2009).

62

These provisions are slightly different than those in the Open Government Progress

Report to the American People, issued by the Executive Office of the President in

December 2009. The stated provisions in the progress report follow:

1) Transparency. Government should provide citizens with information about what

their government is doing so that government can be held accountable.

2) Participation. Government should actively solicit expertise from outside

Washington so that it makes policies with the benefit of the best information.

3) Collaboration. Government officials should work together with one another and

with citizens as part of doing their job of solving national problems (EOTP 2009).

The language of the directive is not specific to the business of government, but places the

citizen and the citizen-government relationship as the center of focus.

Specifically mentioned in the directive is the use of innovative technology to support

activities and direction to the newly created Chief Technology Officer and the associated

personnel in the Office of Management and Budget, which houses the Chief Information

Officer. The 2002 e-Government Act established an Office of E-Government and a Chief

Information Officer for the Federal government that would serve out of the Office of

Management and Budget. However, it was not until March 5, 2009 that the first Chief

Information Officer of the United States, Vivek Kundra, was appointed by President

Barack Obama. Prior to Vivek Kundra‘s appointment, the title was Administrator of the

Office of Electronic Government and Information Technology, and Mark Forman and

Karen Evans served in the position.

Tom Gavin, Office of Management and Budget deputy associate director for strategic

planning and communications, responded to a question about the formal adoption of the

63

title Federal Chief Information Officer versus e-Government Czar (as the title was

informally known under Mark Forman and Karen Evans) ―The position is not just e-

government services. We're trying to change the dynamic, to interact with the public

sector, and not just make sure information is available electronically. Fundamentally,

we're looking at how technology serves the American people (Chabrow 2009)."

The Open Government Directive established the position of Chief Technology Officer

and two deputies to the Chief Information Officer in the Office of Science and

Technology Policy. Additionally, each Agency has an officer in charge of Open

Government. That officer is typically accompanied by one to two assistants. The officer

in charge of Open Government, in addition to the role of leading the Open Government

office, typically holds the title Deputy Chief Information Officer for the given agency.

The organizational structure implemented to support the Directive explicitly coupled

technology development and citizen engagement efforts. This express coupling of

technology development and citizen engagement at the executive and agency levels had

not occurred previously.

The Chief Technology Officer for the federal government was tasked with working with

agencies to develop innovative technologies in support of the directive and to report

progress back to the Executive within 120 days of the Directive‘s issuance. After the 120

day period, agencies reported to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Chief

Technology Officer in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. After consultation

among the agencies and offices, the implementation documentation was published—in

tandem with the Open Government report to the American people. During this time,

agencies began work addressing the implementation of the directive.

64

In the formal implementation documentation, published by Peter Orszag, the Director of

the Office of Management and Budget, on December 8, 2009, several provisions require

meeting specific information technology goals. The first of the requirements is the

responsibility of each agency to develop the policy infrastructure necessary to embed the

principles of Open Government into the agency culture. These policies are left to the

discretion of the agency for the specific purpose of individualized acculturation. For

some agencies, like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Open

Government and the technology development associated with Open Government was

perceived as an opportunity to innovate. Employees quickly developed several initiatives

to promote and perpetuate transparency, participation and collaboration and produced a

108 page plan in which they outlaid only their best practices. They fully embraced the

concept and quickly embedded it into their agency. The Central Intelligence Agency

produced a two page plan and stated the tension between open government and the

mission of the agency was fairly irreconcilable. Policy development for Open

Government was left to the discretion of the agencies, which affects the development and

use of interactive Internet technologies.

Each agency was required to develop an Open Government website. On this website all

activities associated with open government are located. This includes all planning and

reporting activities as well as links to projects and assessments of open government

activities, along with contact information and methods of communication with the

agency. For the planning process, the open government websites at several agencies also

included an interactive public participation tool, IdeaScale. The IdeaScale tool was used

to solicit ideas, comments, and votes for different aspects of the agency open government

65

plan. The outcomes were incorporated into the plans and are now housed on some of the

Open Government websites. All federal agencies have an Open Government Plan as

specified by President Barack Obama in his Open Government Directive. Links to each

agency Open Government website are included in the Supplimental.

In addition to policies and the Open Government website, each agency was required to

build a timeline for their Open Government activities. It was suggested that this timeline

not only incorporate activities associated with Open Government, but the dates for the

development of new technologies or processes associated with Open Government. In

this, there is seemingly some effort to have an observable account not only of the

fulfilling of the directive, but to observe the growth of the agency culture around the

directive activities. Several of the calendars were quite complicated and even

interactive—incorporating the new technologies desired by the administration. The

timeline‘s appear in the agency Open Government plan and on the associated agency

website.

Following is an example of the timeline for the Open Government efforts of the

Environmental Protection Agency. The timeline is interactive. If a user clicks on event,

the event will open in a new window, a description along with video where possible and

opportunity to comment on or embed the event on a social networking site exists for all

events and milestones on the Environmental Protection Agency‘s timeline. For this

particular example, the event is a collaboration activity designed by the agency to

communicate safe burning technique. Citizens were challenged to create a video of the

importance of safe burning techniques and practices for using woodstoves and fireplaces

66

safely. A competition was held for the best video. Citizens and agency staff voted on the

videos. The winner‘s video was featured in the calendar as well as on the site.

Figure 3.2 Environmental Protection Agency Open Government Timeline

Source: Environmental Protection Agency Open Government Timeline:

http://www.epa.gov/open/timeline.html. Last retrieved on October 13, 2010.

67

According to the implementation documentation of the directive, all agencies would

conform to the new guidelines related to complying with the Freedom of Information

Act, eventually posting data about compliance with the Act to the data dashboard

developed by the Department of Justice at FOIA.gov. The FOIA.gov dashboard

essentially provides a portal where data and information about requests, requests met or

rejected, and compliance with the Act are posted for all agencies. Previously, each

agency posted information related to the Freedom of Information Act on their individual

websites. If an individual or organization desired information about multiple agencies‘

compliance with the Act, he or she or the organization would have to visit the website of

each individual agency and compile data across agencies. Consolidation of the data

makes access to them easier for those external to the government. In addition, the

dashboard makes it easier for the government to assess its own progress as the need for

culling data from individual agencies no longer exists. FOIA.gov was launched on March

18, 2011.

Each agency was also required to comply with posting data and information related to

economic recovery and monies allocated to each agency and how those dollars were

distributed for recovery efforts on the Recovery.gov dashboard. Similar dashboards and

information centers, where consolidated data by agency is posted to report progress and

spending to the American people and for use in the government‘s assessment of itself,

were posted on data.gov, USASpending.gov, USA.gov, the IT dashboard, and

Regulations.gov. An icon was added to each agency‘s Open Government site to connect

open government efforts with each of the information dashboards or reporting sites.

Following is a graphic of an example icon:

68

Figure 3.3 Example of Open Government Link Set

USA.gov is a site where links and information about many of the technological

improvements associated with Open Government, as well as historical improvements and

opportunities are located. On the site is a list of blogs associated with each agency, a

social media directory, links to apps.gov or applications developed for mobile and other

devices that connect citizens to real time government information are housed,

challenge.gov or competitive opportunities to assist in solving needs of agencies—often

with a monetary reward are posted, cloud services, and connections to emerging

technologies among other things are consolidated. USA.gov is an electronic warehouse

of opportunities and developments in the information systems of government. All open

government sites link to and report through USA.gov. The site was not developed in

association with the Open Government Directive, but is included in the consolidation and

communications efforts of the Directive.

69

Regulations.gov is a central repository for regulations reporting and events. Agencies

report the regulatory activities, public commentary periods, and scheduling through

regulations.gov. Citizens can search for specific legislation, comments on legislation,

rulings on legislation, and read and submit comments. Also on the site are rankings for

the regulations receiving the most comments and rankings of the top agencies based on

comments posted through the site.

USASpending.gov was initiated by legislation in 2006, the Federal Funding

Accountability and Transparency Act, sponsored by Obama and Coburn. The Act served

to post to the public budget and allocation data produced and maintained by the Office of

Management and Budget and requires that all entities and organizations receiving

funding from the federal government disclose that funding on an Office of Management

Budget website. The Act prompted an unprecedented partnership between the nonprofit

watchdog organization Office of Management and Budget Watch, and the Office of

Management and Budget to produce the website USAspending.gov. The USAspending

site was built collaboratively using the same technology as the OMB Watch site and

offers many of the same capacities and services.

Users of the FedSpending and USASpending sites can sort and filter budget data, access

data updates, build widgets to connect data from the sites to an individual Web site, and

build and use application programming interfaces that allow users to define data

comparisons and characteristics so that users may build data projects that fit their

interests and needs. Users are able to observe and use data in a manner defined by them.

70

The Open Government Directive makes it mandatory for each agency to post their budget

and budget allocation data to USASpending.

By rule of the Open Government Directive, each agency was required to post at least

three high quality data sets to data.gov. Provisions for defining and reviewing data to

meet the standards of high quality are included in the Directive. For the most part, a high

quality data set is one in which the data has been through a quality control process, that is

the data has clear collection rules, has been reviewed by multiple parties, and is deemed

of high quality by data reviewers. Data.gov is a centralized repository for high quality

data produced by agencies. It was launched in 2009 and more nearly 120,000 data sets

from across the federal government were housed in the database upon launch. The Open

Government directive served to push for more data sets to be included in data.gov and to

ensure that all agencies participated in data.gov. Data.gov is considered the flagship

launch of the Obama administration‘s Open Government efforts.

In addition to providing data to the public and to other agencies through a central data

warehouse, the developers of data.gov also created visualization tools to accompany data.

The purpose of the tools was to make it easier for citizens and for agencies to sort and

compare and deal with the large amounts of data. In addition to access to data and tools

to manage the data, users of the site have the ability to communicate data sets and tools

desired for addition to the site. Both citizens and federal government employees can

develop and add tools and applications for the data. These data sets, tools, and

applications are considered by the operators of data.gov and published when approved.

A secondary addition to the data.gov website was the IT dashboard. Agencies report all

71

spending associated with information technology maintenance and improvements through

the IT dashboard site, which is connected to data.gov.

A study completed by Socrata, a non-partisan research group found that the Open

Government Directive was the driving force in agency publication of data. As depicted

in Figure 3.4, of the 216 government respondents to the survey, approximately 65 sited

the Directive as the primary motivation in data publication. Second to the directive was a

feeling of data publication as ―the right thing to do.‖ Feeling that data publication was

the right thing to do was followed by innovation and cost saving purposes.

Figure 3.4 Motivation for Data Publication

Graph source: Socrata Open Government Data Benchmark Study, Version 1 (2010).

http://benchmarkstudy.socrata.com/d/u3gu-c84y. Last retrieved April 1, 2011.

72

The primary drive of the Open Government directive is the documentation and

consolidation of data into dashboard or other consolidation spaces. As the Socrata study

suggests, publication is motivated largely from an external force, the Open Government

Directive, and is justified internally through a desire to serve and work with the public

and to stimulate innovation. The business purpose, the reduction of cost, is fourth to

compliance with a mandate and more civic motivations.

In addition to consolidation, it is expected that agencies will build tools to help citizens

sort, visualize, and manage the data and application to access the data from multiple

devices. These more interactive inclusions with the data separate the pure transactional

purpose from data and data management. They also lend themselves to the participation

collaboration points of the directive. Participation and collaboration are far less defined

in the directive than transparency and data efforts. The provisions on the directive

mainly state that agencies must devise methods and opportunities for citizens to interact

with government. It is strongly suggested within the Directive that this engagement be

provided in an online format and that it involve some method for sharing ideas,

comments, feedback, and innovative practices. And for collaboration, it is suggested that

agencies self-define opportunities and incentive for collaboration efforts between

agencies, agency partners, and with the public.

In addition to transparency, each agency is tasked with developing a Flagship initiative

and to provide the public with appropriate dates and a timeline with clearly defined

milestones for progress. The Flagship initiative must involve a technology development

that promotes transparency, participation, collaboration, or a combination of the three.

The Directive does suggest that each agency include defined measurement metrics and

73

plans for sustainability of their Flagship initiative. However, no guidance is provided to

agencies as suggestion for how to develop measurement metrics or sustainability efforts.

These items are left to the agency‘s to define in terms of agency missions and goals. All

agencies have developed and executed Flagship Initiatives as included in the Open

Government Directive.

A ―stoplight‖ evaluation system, where agencies rank themselves as green for fully in

compliance with the Open Government Directive, yellow for nearly in compliance, and

red for not in compliance with the Directive, was developed by the Office of

Management and Budget for Open Government plans. Most agencies have undergone

two self-evaluations. According to these self-evaluations, all agencies are successful in

implementing Open Government initiatives (i.e. all‖ green‖). For most, this means that

they are meeting the expectations of data.gov and submitting high quality data sets for

public access through the data.gov portal. All agencies also meet the recovery.gov and

USASpending reporting standards. Each has produced an Open Government plan and

has developed and Open Government web page on their website. In meeting these

requirements, agencies are meeting the most basic of the transparency goals set forth in

the Open Government Directive. All major agencies also use some form of social media,

like Facebook or Twitter, to engage with the public. Most agencies have also launched a

webinar series that offer relevant information related to their agency mission or that

addresses current needs and "hot topics" or items in the news. The questions for applying

the self-evaluation are in the Supplimental.

The outcomes for all agencies of the self-evaluation completed in April of 2010, after

public input was incorporated into the initial Open Government plan for each agency and

74

after each agency had reviewed and edited an initial draft of their Open Government were

consolidated. The consolidated ―stoplight‖ evaluation appears in the following graphic,

Figure 3.5. For the self-evaluations, the color interpretations are:

Red – plan does not satisfy the requirement

Yellow – plan partially satisfies the requirement

Green – plan fully satisfies the requirement

N/A - not applicable because agency does not engage in that activity or area

Figure 3.5 Open Government Plan Self Evaluation

The Open Government Initiative Scorecard: http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around. Last Retrieved on

September 29, 2010.

75

All agencies, save the Office of Personnel Management and the Council on

Environmental Quality report that they have produced three high-value data sets and

posted them to data.gov. The Office of Personnel Management and the Council on

Environmental Quality show that they are making progress toward the goal (i.e.

―yellow‖) but have not yet identified or loaded the three high-value data sets into the

data.gov portal. All agencies report that they have included the public in deliberating and

defining their Open Government plan. The majority of the agencies listed used the

interactive Internet tool IdeaScale to collect ideas, comments, and votes on ideas and

comments from the public about their Open Government plan. Eleven of the 29 agencies

report that their plan is not yet fully complete (i.e. ―yellow‖). A yellow light on the Open

Government plan indicates that the agency plan is missing a key element, for example an

indication of the policies that will be set for the agency when adopting open government

or no mention of a possible technology that will be used in a given agency initiative. To

get a ―green,‖ all elements must have been in place by April 7, 2010.

All agencies that report a ―green,‖ or all complete on their plan, also report ―green‖ on

every aspect of their Open Government planning efforts. Agencies reporting ―yellow,‖ or

not fully complete in their planning efforts, vary on their successes with implementing

transparency, participation, and collaboration as dictated in the Open Government

directive. For agencies that report a ―yellow‖ status within their plan, they report

transparency as the area of most concern in planning. For the planning efforts,

transparency is associated with the most reporting and posting efforts.

76

THE TECHNOLOGIES

To understand the technologies developed in association with the Open Government

Directive—the largest and most clear call for incorporation of new developments in

government information systems since the 2002 E-Government Act—an assessment of

the technologies developed was conducted. Each of the Open Government plans was

examined for the technologies present in the plan. To document the analysis, a large

database of the plans and the technologies was developed. The database compiled

contains the agency name, the name of the technology or plan for technology

development, a link to the web space containing the technology, a description of the basic

functionality of the technology, description tags for the technology, the classification of

the technology as related to transparency or participation or collaboration, the

classification of the project as flagship or not, contact information for the personnel

responsible for the agency Open Government directive, links to the agency Open

Government sites, and other relevant information.

The Open Government Directive prompted the development of more than 360 new

information technology endeavors at 33 major federal agencies. Of the projects

developed, 171 are associated with transparency efforts, 174 are associated with

participation efforts, and 107 are associated with collaboration efforts. Some of the

projects overlap into two or more different areas. Explored herein are the technologies,

their development, and indicators for their sustainability.

77

The focus is the directive was to build technologies that would make government more

transparent, more participatory, and more collaborative. These qualities differ from the

E-Government Act in that the E-Government Act was instituted to move the business

transactions of government online. Examples of the differences in purpose can be seen

on the pages of the White House from 2002 and 2009, depicted in Figure 3.6, when the

legislation and directive for the different systems were instituted.

Figure 3.6 White House Circa 2002 and 2008

White House Circa 2002: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fmsparis/3214726247/in/photostream/.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.

The 2002 White House was essentially a news page where stories about the activities of

government were posted. There were links to each executive government agency as well

as a sign-up for email updates of the activities of the White House. There were additional

78

links to speeches, photos, news, and policies under consideration. The site was strictly

for static information exchange.

The 2009 White House features a blog of real-time updates; the ability for real-time

connections through Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites; connections to

data portals to monitor the spending and economic recovery related activities; live

coverage of events; as well as stored videos of events; legislation under consideration;

and connections to information that has geo specific data for local flu epidemics as well

as tools to assist in dealing with flu outbreaks. Connected to the flu.gov site is a widget

that will place a link to the geo data and flu resource center to any website. The web site

is comprised of real-time data that has multiple points of connection, the ability to

localize, and the ability to access and manage data. It involves more transparency and

more participation than the static 2002 web page.

Recognition that technology, like that on the 2009 White House website, could be more

useful when governing prompted the Open Government directive. The Directive

motivated adoption of technology by agencies.

Transparency

Of the Open Government projects that involve new interactive Internet technologies, 171

of those projects involve transparency as an element. Transparency efforts make up the

largest portion of Open Government initiatives and are mostly seen in data sharing and

Dashboard activities wherein data is combined with tool and visualization catalogues,

79

like data.gov, Centers for Disease Control Community Health data, FDATrack,

RegInfo.gov, or the Department of Justice‘s newest launch FOIA.gov. Each of these

dashboards offers citizens the opportunity to engage with data, build visualizations and

comparative data projects, and provide feedback—and sometimes engage in discussions

with—the parent agency.

Data portals take on two primary forms. The first form is a consolidated structure that

offers citizens and organizations access to data that is collected across agencies. This

data can be specific to a requirement of the agency, like reporting regulatory action in

which the agency is currently engaging or reporting on spending, or it can be data that is

specific to agency operations that is consolidated with other data that is specific to other

government agencies, like that found in data.gov. The second portal form is one in which

citizens can obtain data about services that are provided by the federal government but

that are also local to them. Often these portals also contain general trend data, like that

associated with health or small businesses, along with the ability for the citizen to pull out

data specific to his or her condition or location.

An example of a data portal that houses consolidated data related to a reporting

requirement of all agencies and that is associated with the transparency initiative of the

Open Government Directive is FOIA.gov, pictured in Figure 3.7. The purpose of

FOIA.gov is to present a consolidated format that outlays the requests, responses to, and

status of activity related to the Freedom of Information Act, to which all agencies are

required to comply. FOIA.gov provides basic information about the history of freedom

of information in the United States as well as historical data for requests for information

and agency compliance with the Act. Users can search and mine data for requests,

80

exemptions, appeals, processing time, fee waivers, administration, backlog, consultations,

and comparisons for fiscal years 2010, 2009, 2008, and other years as available.

Additionally, the site presents interactive visualizations with which citizens can create

comparative charts and graphs of compliance data over time. The site also provides

written and video instruction for how to request information through that falls under the

Freedom of Information Act purview. Following is a picture of the front page of the

FOIA.gov data portal.

Figure 3.7 FOIA.gov Opening Page

Source: Department of Justice, FOIA.gov: http://www.foia.gov/

81

The FOIA.gov site also offers citizens the ability to mine agency and historical data by

agency, sub-agency, and year. Users can search the data using multiple options for

agency, year, and reporting element (requests, exemptions, appeals, etc.). A report is

generated based on the data requested by the user. The user can take the information

provided in the report and generate charts and graphs for the information requested in his

or her data mining venture. On the site, there are options for basic reports and more

advanced reports depending on the level of depth desired by the user. Following, in

Figure 3.8, is a graphic of the data mining interface of FOIA.gov:

82

Figure 3.8 FOIA.gov Data Mining Interface

Source: Department of Justice FOIA.gov Data: http://www.foia.gov/data.html

83

In the FOIA.gov data mining interface, the user can create reports by agency or

comparison reports. Graphs and charts can be developed based on the level of

information chosen by the user. Additionally, the raw numbers appear in a data table.

This data table, the report, and the data visualizations can be exported into a raw file that

the user can download. There is also a printing interface that allows the user to print the

report information and graphics directly from FOIA.gov. The portal offers multiple

interactive functionalities for the user.

The second type of portal that is more service and user focused is exemplified well in the

HealthCare.gov site developed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The

portal is depicted in Figure 3.9.

84

Figure 3.9 HealthCare.gov

Source: Health and Human Services HealthCare.gov: http://www.healthcare.gov/

85

Through the portal, individuals can gather information specific to particular audience;

families, individuals, people with disabilities, seniors, young adults and employers. That

information can be sorted by state or by service. Information in the site relates to

insurance, hospital and other care facilities and services, disease and illness prevention,

as well as general health care and health care laws. Additionally, users can enter

comparative spaces to compare local hospital serves and average costs of services at local

hospitals. They can also compare dialysis, nursing, and home health care options as part

of the comparative capacities available on the site. Educational services, through video

and tutorials have been incorporated into the site to assist users in understanding how to

maximize the functionalities of the site. Data for the site is provided by local state and

partner agencies. The HealthCare.gov site acts as a consolidation and comparative data

center for users.

Participation

Of the Open Government projects that involve new interactive Internet technologies, 174

of those projects involve participation as an element. Citizens participate with the

government when they want to augment a service or when they seek basic information

sharing opportunities. Citizens and employees are especially active in initiatives like the

National Archives Docs Teach, and Justice‘s That‘s Not Cool violence prevention

resource center. One of the most successful participation Open Government projects was

citizen participation in idea generation through the IdeaScale tool, where thousands of

ideas were generated and several were adopted for use in Open Government planning.

Agencies, like the Department of Defense, The General Services Administration, and

86

NASA directly tie the citizen ideas garnered during the public comment phase of the plan

process to their plan. They included summaries of the ideas and plans for executing the

resultant projects at their agency.

Participation occurs in three primary ways through new interactive Internet technologies.

The first is method of participation is personal interaction with data that is individualized

to the user. In participation sites that foster personal interaction with data and services of

the government, a platform where the user can enter data about themselves is available.

Based on the information provided, the user is presented with data and information that

suits them or fits the issue about which they are seeking information. An example of a

space that allows for personal interaction through new technology is the MyPyramid site

developed by the Department of Agriculture. Following, in Figure 3.10, is a picture of

the front web page of the MyPyramid site:

Figure 3.10 MyPyramid.gov

Department of Agriculture, My Pyramid: http://www.mypyramid.gov/

87

Through the site users can enter basic information about height, weight, activity level,

and other personal attributes. The site returns a caloric and food suggestion set that

match the attributes presented by the user. The user is also presented with basic

information about eating properly, exercise, and a healthy lifestyle. The site also offers

online assistance and guides for determining healthy foods, along with weight loss and

diet and exercise analysis services. In addition to these functionalities, users are offered

podcasts and videos related to health and exercise. There is also an interactive space for

planning and charting meals, exercises, and health activities. Users can explore and

connect with local health and diet services. Data related to larger demographics and

general health is also provided through the site. The purpose of the information and

activity provided through the site is to assist the user in making personal decision for

conducting his or her individual life.

The second form of participation through new interactive Internet technologies is through

a portal that allows for citizen interaction with regulation or ideation that affects the

course of government. To assist in developing regulations or participating in ideation, a

space where users enter ideas, comments, and rankings for ideas and comments is

typically provided by the agency seeking participation. Also offered on the site is

information and research that supports, refutes, or educates participant about the issue or

regulation in question. Typically, the status of the issue and important dates for

deliberation and argumentation, as well as status updated will be provided through the

web space. The Department of Transportation developed Regulation Room where they

engage citizens in making the rules of the road for the United States. Following, in

Figure 3.11, is a picture of the opening page of the Transportation Regulation Room.

88

Figure 3.11 Department of Transportation Regulation Room

Department of Transportation Regulation Room: http://regulationroom.org/

Through the site, users can follow current legislation and comments on that legislation.

There is a process for informal comment making and a process for formal comment

making. There is also space for users to rank ideas and comments and for the agency to

respond to citizen ideas and comments. There is a space for users to click through to

what interests them most about the regulation pending and to post documents and support

materials to the space for consideration by the agency. The purpose of participation sites

that allow users the ability to develop ideas around and suggestions for regulations and

policies is to engage citizens in charting the path of government.

Collaboration

Of the Open Government projects that involve new interactive Internet technologies, 107

of those projects involve collaboration as an element. Collaboration efforts comprise the

89

smallest portion of open Government projects, but often have the most participation and

results. Citizens collaborate best with the government when they feel that they have a

genuine contribution to make that is often related to their personal expertise.

Contribution based on personal expertise is the precise intent of collaboration efforts

outlined in the Open Government directive. Examples of collaboration associated with

Open Government are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‘s Citizen

Scientist, the Veteran‘s Administration VAi2 challenge innovation initiative, or efforts

like the Department of State‘s Global Pulse and the Executive Office of the President‘s

GreenGov, which not only bring together citizens, but bring together non-traditional

government partners.

The purpose of collaborative technologies is to engage citizens and users in using their

individual knowledge and expertise to contribute to a body of knowledge, to develop

ideas to address issues, and to assist agencies in reaching agency missions and goals.

Collaboration tools range from wikis, like ExpertNet where experts convene to discuss

policy issues with representatives from the White House, contribution spaces like the

Citizen Scientist project where individuals help map mars and the solar system, and those

like MindMpr where experts convene to develop plans for issues facing the science

industry. Depicted in Figure 3.12 is the home page for the MindMpr project.

90

Figure 3.12 MindMapr

National Aeronautics and Space Museum: http://mindmapr.nasa.gov/

On the MindMpr site, citizens and experts engage in discussions related to topics posed.

Topics are posted that relate from issues like business models and opportunities to

technology and marketing to space travel and chemistry. Speakers post events, thoughts,

research, and media related to the topics. These feeds are simulcast in social media sites

like Facebook and twitter and feedback loops across the government and social media

sites. Companies and the government can adopt the ideas and research. They can also

pursue topics with contributors and create knowledge communities for information and

knowledge exchange. The purpose of the collaboration sites is to convene and leverage

expertise around a topic to push an issue forward, to develop ideas, and to create a body

of knowledge for bettering or solving an issue or topic.

91

The newest form of collaboration space is a challenge space. In the challenge space, the

government posts needs to the public that can be met by the public. Citizens and

organizations compete for incentives offered by the government for those who meet and

win the challenge. These challenges can be as simple as video competitions for the best

public service announcements, to ideas for new business process, to actual products.

Incentives range from publication and distribution of videos, to idea adoption with award

certification for submission of the idea chosen, to monetary incentives. An example of an

interactive collaboration space is VAi2, developed by the Department of Veterans

Affairs. A graphic of the front page of the site follows in Figure 3.13:

92

Figure 3.13 VAi2

Department of Veteran Affairs, VAi2: http://www.va.gov/vai2/

93

Through the site, users can search for competitions and submission opportunities as well

as rules and methods for submitting projects and bids. They can view past winners and

access information useful to them in the competition process. They can also view videos

and slide presentations for each challenge and for past challenges and submit research

related to challenges. And, they can compete to win projects posted to the site. The goal

of the challenge sites is to leverage knowledge and talents of citizens, academics,

industry, and organizations to help achieve agency missions.

The competition interface is being widely adopted in government. This adoption is

largely due to the draw of uncommon audiences and the auction-like prize and pricing-

like strategies. Where the government would usually have to post a bid and evaluate

contractor proposals that would come from a traditional set of contractors who are trained

to look for bid posts and how to bid, the government can now post in a central and

transparent space where voting and ranking is completed by multiple parties on projects

from a wide variety of organizations and individuals. With online collaboration spaces,

the process is open to more audiences and transparently competitive.

Problems exist with some of the collaboration efforts. As can be seen in the MindMpr

graphic, the only scientists that seem to be participating as scientific experts for the

government are male scientists. Female users exist in the user pool, but none are

considered experts and very few post events or information to the site. Additionally, like

a work space, a high level of attention is required for the collaboration. Real-time

posting of discussions, ideas, best practices, and follow-through is critical to project

achievement and sustainability. These issues are not specific to collaboration that occurs

online, they are traditional problems of engagement. However, strategies to deal with the

94

problems have not yet been identified, largely because evaluation of collaboration efforts

does not yet exist.

Benefis for interactive Internet collaboration spaces also exist that do not necessarily

exist in physical world collaboration. In an online presence, there is an opportunity for

non-traditional partners to participate in collaboration efforts. These partners are both

citizens and agency partnerships. An online forum allows citizens to contribute to a

project from anywhere in the world at any time. And, because an online presence is not

location specific, multiple agencies can host the project and use the results. Seemingly

the only limiting factors to partnerships in collaboration are bandwidth and time.

FLAGSHIP

Each agency was required to develop a ―flagship‖ initiative. This flagship initiative was

the technological launch of the Open Government directive for each agency. The

initiative must have incorporated one of the three aspects of Open Government,

transparency, collaboration, participation and must have involved the implementation of a

new interactive Internet technology. This initiative was meant to be the hallmark of each

agency that would lead the agency forward into open government and into new

technology adoption. Each agency was required to couple an evaluation plan and a plan

for sustainability of their flagship initiative into the agency Open Government plan. The

flagship initiative is the only portion of the Open Government directive to specifically

require metrics for evaluation.

95

INNOVATION

An example of an innovation in government that have occurred in association with the

Open Government directive and that incorporates the ideas of collaboration and

participation and that cut across all agencies are Challenge.gov. Challenge.gov, depicted

in Figure 3.14, is a portal for agencies to post issues or problems they face and to

crowdsource solutions to the problems or issues. Through the Challenge.gov platform,

agencies post a problem or issue that the agency faces. They can offer a monetary award

for the person or company that poses a solution that gets chosen for solving the issue.

They can also offer a reward as a payment to solve the issue once a given solution has

been chosen. Once a ―solver‖ has posted a solution, the public and agency employees

can discuss the solution, clarify the solution, and ultimately vote on the solution.

However, the choice of solution is left solely to a panel of judges that can be comprised

from the agency or the agency and its partners. The solution is posted on the agency

website and the monetary or other award is given to the ―solver.‖

96

Figure 3.14 Challenge.gov

Challenge.gov: http://challenge.gov/

DISCUSSION

The tie between the Open Government Directive and technology development lies in the

practical execution of agency mission in tandem with open government initiatives. This

tie is strengthened with input from the public and concrete ways for citizens to interact

97

with the technology products of open government. This observation bears true for the

more than 360 initiatives associated with the Open Government Directive. While the

executive prompted the adoption of technologies, those that personalize it to agency and

agency mission and those that find use for the technology to help achieve agency goals

are the most successful at adopting Open Government and at adopting new interactive

Internet technologies.

Although technology adoption can be a slow process, few agencies already show facility

with multiple technologies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has

displayed many successes in implementing new technologies associated with the Open

Government initiatives. They have several Citizen Scientists type projects that attract

people of all ages and help to reach the objectives of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. They have developed a Participatory Exploration Office where all of the

participatory activities of the agency are housed.11 One of the citizen favorite projects is

the Be A Martian Project where citizens experience Mars by improving maps, taking part

in research tasks, and count craters—all of which assists Mars scientists in documenting

Mars.12 A project on the horizon is the Moon Work Project13. The project is a

competition for researchers and students to develop new space and exploration

technologies. They also developed NASAConnect, a portal for citizen collaboration

opportunities.14 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration projects are really

11 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Participatory Exploration Office:

http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/peo.html. 12 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Be A Martian Project:

http://beamartian.jpl.nasa.gov/welcome. 13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Moon Walk Project: http://moontasks.larc.nasa.gov/. 14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAConnect: http://www.nasa.gov/connect/.

98

geared toward citizens helping to achieve the science and engineering mission of

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Additionally, in their Open Government plan, they include ground breaking technologies.

They have initiatives to institute cloud based computing as part of their Nebula project

(NASA 2010). Nebula will house scientific data and information that will stored in the

―cloud.‖ Storage in the cloud allows the data to be accessed from multiple devices in

multiple formats and to be moved and shipped with simple password access. Because

data and information are not located in a physical platform, they can be accessed by

multiple users from anywhere on any device in the world. This accessibility opens up

potential for new collaborations and new uses for data.

To accompany Nebula, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has also

developed a researcher network and an Innovation Pavilion. They partnered with

InnoCentive to issue challenges to the public and the private sector to work with them

and with fellow agencies, including the National Labs, to develop solutions to complex

scientific problems. The Air Force and the Wright Brothers Institute are using a similar

process for air based defense systems. Together, data access and incentives along with

new interactive Internet technologies, open partnerships across uncommon and non-

traditional actors that help improve the government and contribute to achieving agency

missions, create a smarter community, and a better society.

A primary driver in establishing the E-Government Act of 2002 was the idea that

electronic systems would break down the barriers between agencies and resolve some of

the ―silos‖ of government bureaucracy. Projects like Nebula and the Innovation Pavilion

99

are examples, not only of barrier break down between agencies, but between agencies

and the public. Other open government projects are built around building new citizen

and non-tradition partnerships. Spurring non-traditional governmental and non-

governmental partnerships, the Department of State developed Apps4Africa.15

Apps4Africa combines the Department of State, iHub (technologists, technology funders,

and the hacker community), Appfrica Labs, and the Social Development Network to

solicit ideas for applications that will address development in African countries. The site

has an interactive idea space, a wiki, and a blog. Ideas are gathered via a set of

competitions. Winners are chosen and subsequently supported by partner

agencies. These projects are geared building non-traditional government, citizen, and

public-private partner ships using interactive technologies to achieve more global goals.

Additionally, efforts to break down barriers between agencies have occurred as well. The

only cross-agency portals that were developed around the E-government act of 2002 were

the Geodata portal and later the USA.gov portal. The Geodata portal is populated by

geographic data submitted by agencies related to various sites of concern for the agency.

Data for government sites from all agencies is compiled and organized in the Geodata

portal. It is a source of geographical data for agencies as well as the public. USA.gov is

a consolidation of services offered by the federal government. It is a directory of sorts

for both citizens and fellow agencies. More than six portals for activities, regulations,

data, and legislation have been developed in association with the Open Government

directive. The General Services Administration has also developed an internal portal for

the various agencies to access various technologies and information for using those

15 Department of State Apps4Africa: http://apps4africa.org/.

100

technologies, with the examples are sometime best case practices and the Open

Government Playbook where guides and contacts for agencies are housed.16 Portals allow

government agencies access to data about themselves and about other agencies in a quick

and easy format.

While most of the Open Government projects highlighted deal with external facing

interactive technologies, there are technologies that are internal facing and assistive to

employees in achieving daily tasks or in providing feedback and ideas on how to improve

the federal workers experience and build efficiencies in government. Early examples of

internal facing technologies include Intellipedia and Diplopedia. Diplopedia is a wiki

that connects the Department of State with affiliates and partner agencies to develop a

base of knowledge from which to operate and communicate.17 Intellipedia is a wiki used

by multiple national and international security agencies to exchange information across

agencies. Both are internal wikis used by agencies to achieve agency mission goals.

With Open Government, the Corporation for National and Community Service developed

My AmeriCorps. My AmeriCorps is a web space for AmeriCorps members to offer

feedback on their service experiences and to access resources to help them complete their

membership years.18 The Department of Education developed OpenEd, a resources

center and dashboard for hiring teachers and other education sector employees.19 And the

16 General Services Administration Open Government Playbook:

https://opengovdirective.pbworks.com/w/page/1832552/FrontPage 17 Department of State About Diplopedia: http://www.state.gov/m/irm/ediplomacy/115847.htm. 18 Corporation for National and Community Service My AmeriCorps:

https://my.americorps.gov/mp/login.do. 19 Department of Education OpenEd: http://www.ed.gov/open/plan/opened-employment-hiring-solutions-

dashboard

101

Department of Agriculture created a Services and Benefits resource center that includes

forms, feedback spaces, and links to benefits and services of the department.20 Several

agencies have internal wikis and use other technologies to help them achieve the daily

tasks of their agency.

The least successful projects are those, like blogs and data dumps, that offer little

opportunity for interaction. The response to blogs is best when they are accompanied by

resource centers and the response is best to data dumps when they are accompanied by

useful tools, like calculators, visual aids, comparative tools, and discussion

communities. The most successful projects are those that offer the opportunity for

interaction, like the OpenIdeas where an idea solicitation is set forth and people can

discuss, promote and demote ideas, and projects that promote competition--especially

competition that feeds into a larger goal/agency mission. These observations hold for

internal government users and for citizen and other users.

Geographic Information System applications are especially useful in garnering citizen

support to assist with disasters and with local problems. The Geodata portal is really

important in this respect. In times of disaster or major need, citizens will post both data

and commentary to assist with the problem. And they will post and interact with the geo

data until the problem is addressed. Some of them will then create smaller communities

that update the data sets created for the disaster and then assist other communities when a

problem hits another locality. The government, specifically the geodata.gov data acts as

20 Department of Agriculture Services and Benefits: http://www.dm.usda.gov/benefits.htm

102

a backbone for these efforts. In this respect, raw data dumps are really useful to citizen

and government service provision.

One drawback to the Open Government system is that while there are repositories for

things like blogs and data, there are no real repositories for participation and

collaboration opportunities. A suggestion would be that a social media and collaboration

"directory" be developed to point citizens in direction for participation. Additionally,

several of the Open Government initiatives and the agency open.gov sites are not actually

connected to the larger agency site. So, a citizen or participant would have to be looking

for the Open Government initiatives in order to find them as they are not necessarily

linked on an agency's main page. Agencies are required to have the Open Government

page and plan, but it isn't necessarily connected to all of the agency main pages. Some of

them are also not linked back to the White House Open Government page. Proper links

would serve in accessibility for Open Government efforts.

Additionally, in the next phase of Open Government, each agency might consider

developing value metrics and parameters for their projects. They might ask what value

these tools provide to their agency and to the public. Most agencies track use, but not

value.

By and large, agencies have heard the Open Government call and have worked with

citizens to produce plans, projects, and products that promote transparency, participation,

and collaboration in ways that add practicality to ideals. While there is still work to be

done, the question of continued development and sustainability remains.

103

SUSTAINABILITY

Neither ideals nor technology are sustainable until the culture around them adopts them

as essential to its core. Built into the directions for establishing Open Government in

agencies is the provision to create policies to support the development of a culture of

open government. Part of these polices entail making a direct link between the activities

assigned by the directive and the missions of the agency. This linkage makes the

activities of the directive part of the logical processes of work. Another part involves

tying the activities and values of open government to the strategic planning and long term

goals of the agency so that the activities and values are embedded into the systemic

operations of the agency. And finally, in order for the democratic values of the directive

to become the values of the agency, a direct tie between value sets must be perpetuated

throughout the agency.

To be sustainable, a technological system must have the proper base components—hard

and software. It must also include proper long and short term budgeting, as well as a

vision and strategic plan for growth, evolution, and maturation of the hardware, software,

and system. For interactive systems, concessions must also be made for bandwidth,

access to the Internet, connection speeds, and multiple access devices. Planning must

include proper maintenance and culling of web pages and interactive tools.

In the E-Government Act of 2002, Bush laid out specific systems requirements with a

five-year budget strategy and multi-year timelines for technology implementation (Bush

2002). While he did not include specific hard or softwares, he did include systems

requirements for the hard and softwares chosen by agencies. Along with multi-agency

104

technical and strategy teams, Bush also set up offices responsible for monitoring the

growth and development of e-government systems. In addition, he called for a series of

reporting mechanisms to determine the progress of agency adoption of technology. And

he delineated access and deployment requirements that considered the functions and

needs of individual agencies. Agencies took it upon themselves to determine their

method of incorporation of planning for the Open Government Directive and for new

technologies.

The Open Government Directive did not set systems requirements or any long-term

budget strategies to support technology development (Orszag 2009). The only specific

systems requirement was the use of the IdeaScale tool for collecting public input on

individual agency Open Government plans. Outside of this particular tool, no outlines

were set for increased broadband or access mechanisms or resources for developing those

mechanisms. Equally, no software requirements were set forth in the Directive. And, no

system of evaluation or long-term timeline was suggested to agencies. A gesture toward

sustainability was included in the Open Government Directive in the call to include the

ideals of Open Government in the agency policy planning process—though no specifics

were outlined with that call.

In their Open Government plan, the Department of Health and Human Services connects

the activities of the agency to the activities of open government (see Figure 3.15). They

break out both short and long term tasks that will be achieved in association with the

goals of the agency and in association with the goals of the Open Government directive.

While they do not tie open government and strategic activities to technology use or

105

development directly in their goal statement, they do tie information and interactivity

which are the core values of the technologies associated with open government.

Figure 3.15 Department of Health and Human Services Open Government Plan

Health and Human Services Open Government Plan:

http://www.hhs.gov/open/plan/opengovernmentplan/change/supportstrategic.html. Last retrieved April 5,

2011.

Additionally, agencies like the Social Security Administration and the Environmental

Protection Agency tie the Open Government Directive and their agency Open

Government activities to their agency strategic plans. The Environmental Protection

106

Agency incorporates a streamlined structure and interactive timeline for the combined

strategic goals on their website where citizens can offer input and where the agency can

report back on their progress at achieving their goals. The Social Security Agency aligns

strategic agency outcomes with outcomes of open government, depicted in Figure 3.16.

They use alignment of goals as a method for incorporating open government into their

daily activities. Additionally, nearly all of the outcomes of the goals involve some form

of information technology use or development.

Figure 3.16 Social Security Agency Strategic Plan

Social Security Administration Open Government Plan: http://www.ssa.gov/open/story-2010-06-24-open-

government-plan.html. Last retrieved September 28, 2010.

In their Open Government plan, the Department of Agriculture directly links technology

to their activities associated with the Open Government directive. In their strategic plan,

107

they list explicitly transparency, participation, and collaboration and tie them to the

values of the agency. The values of Open Government comprise three of their seven core

values. Not only are the agency and open government values tied, but the open

government values are listed with the initiatives associated with technology.

Additionally, the values are displayed in an iconic figure that is meant as a motivational

and cultural statement of the organization. They also tie technology to their core agency

development in that it is an explicit part of their values statement.

These value statements are generally placed in central office locations, offering

employees and the public a constant visual reminder of the connection between agency

value and open government. And in the case of the Department of Agriculture, as seen in

Figure 3.17, a visual tie to technology between values of the agency and open

government. Citizens can immediately identify the core values and the structure of the

agency around those core values. In fact, Open Government makes up the core of their

agency values logo.

108

Figure 3.17 Department of Agriculture Agency Values

Department of Agriculture Open Government Plan:

http://www.usda.gov/open/Blog.nsf/archive?openview&title=Plan&type=cat&cat=Plan&sort=I. Last

retrieved March 15, 2011.

The most sustainable open government efforts are those that connect projects to agency

mission and the goals of the directive and that involve citizens in achieving both open

government goals and agency mission at least partially through the project. In addition,

sustainable success is found in those initiatives that connect real world applications to

open government goals and long-term strategic visioning.

109

In addition to incorporating new technology development and the democratic values

associated with new technology development into strategic planning, it is also important

to note that there is some level of technology championing that must occur to sustain

technology adoption. The ―program to encourage innovative solutions to enhance

electronic Government services and processes‖ and ―Title II: Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services‖ portions of the E-Government Act of

2002 incorporated measures for exploration and experimentation with technologies as

well as sharing sessions among information technology staff so that technology would be

incorporated into agencies quickly, but also so that agencies would be motivated to

explore the uses and potentials of information technologies in meeting their agency goals.

However, outside of incorporating technology to achieve service and agency goals,

technology adoption has involved some championing by specific individuals in the

legislature and in the presidency. That championing has also involved the use of

democratic language, or words that are associated with good governance and democracy

to call for exploration and adoption. Coburn and Obama, in the Federal Funding

Accountability and Transparency Act specifically involve concepts of transparency as

part of good governance to frame their arguments for the creation of USASpending. In

the Transparency and Open Government Act, Obama uses the core values of democracy,

transparency and participation, as well as a core value of emerging technologies,

collaboration, to call for new technology development.

For Obama, technology has always been at the forefront of his politics and at the

forefront of his governance strategy. In his political campaigns, he effectively used his

website to garner funds, as well as organize grassroots campaign efforts, distribute

110

campaign materials, and build policy communities for policy discussions about his

political platform. He incorporated technology development in his works as senator,

through calling for the consolidated USASpending site and others, and as President. He

has continually been a champion for incorporating new information technologies,

particularly interactive Internet technologies into governance.

Champions in technology development are important as justification for adopting

technology often relate to value. The value of new technologies in the early stages of

adoption is not always immediately apparent. The disruption caused by adoption and the

―kinks‖ associated with adoption can frustrate users and those implementing systems.

Champions help in allaying fears and in inspiring the cultural change necessary for

technology adoption and use. They also bring about co-champions and followers who

assist in implementation and in funding or fighting for funding—which is a primary

component of sustainability.

The 2002 E-Government Act established a fund to support transitioning the daily

activities of government online. The purpose of the fund was not necessarily to cover the

investments that agencies would make in digitizing agency processes, but for projects

associated with moving the business of government online. Historically the fund has

come under criticism because it wasn‘t necessarily seen as essential to the digitization

process and at times has been viewed as for more experimental purposes. Some of the

technologies that have been developed in tandem with the Open Government directive,

including data.gov, USASpending.gov, and Apps.gov are being considered for cuts in the

current budget.

111

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs Committee, of which Joseph Lieberman, co-author with Obama of the bill that

spawned USASpending.gov and committee chairman, was quoted in defense of new

information technologies, "Economic conditions demand wise budget decisions, but

cutting money from multiple federal IT programs is penny-wise and pound foolish.

Programs that modernize technology ultimately improve management and save taxpayers

billions of dollars. Transparency and e-government programs encourage public

participation in government. Small investments in IT modernization can reap enormous

rewards, which is why Senator Lieberman opposes the proposed cuts to the e-gov fund

and the administration's IT reform efforts (Miller 2011)." Without champions for the

technologies, sustainability remains a question.

INNOVATION VERSUS DEMOCRACY

The story of open government is as much, if not more, about innovation as it is about

democracy. While the transparency and participation ideals set forth in the directive

relate directly to democracy, arguably collaboration has as much to do with democracy as

emerging business practices associated with new interactive Internet technologies.

Additionally, the Open Government outcomes to date relate far more, and are written and

talked about far more, to innovation than to the enhancement of democracy.

In the first months of the initiative, the Obama administration published an innovations

gallery where they highlighted the innovations associated with the Open Government

directive. While these innovations were published in association with the values stated in

112

the directive, the discussion is more about the use of technology than achieving a goal of

transparency, participation, or collaboration.

In a recent blog post, Aneesh Chopra and Chris Vein, the Chief and Deputy Chief

Technology Officers, write about the business innovations spurred from the Open

Government directive. They cite the development of private companies Socrata, a social

data management and visualization company, and InfoChimps, a data sorting and posting

tool, external to the government as successes of Open Government innovation (Chopra

and Vein 2011). In another article, Chopra sites Open Government as the base for

StartUp America, an entrepreneurial and growth acceleration plan for businesses. In yet

another set of articles, Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer of the federal

government, and Chris Lu, Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary, talk about

Open Government in terms of customer service value and building a more efficient and

effective government. In fact, of the articles written and issued on the White House Open

Government blog in 2011 about the Open Government directive, only one does not relate

the innovation outcomes of Open Government.

The discussion around the successes of Open Government is largely related to successes

in the private sector and increases in the effectiveness and efficiencies of government.

The directive is seemingly moving toward not necessarily being about fostering

innovation to support democratic values, but fostering technology development to spur

innovation. The move raises questions. Are the values associated with democracy,

transparency, participation, collaboration the spur for technological adoption or are the

values of capitalism, innovation and growth, the spur for technological adoption? Is it

coincidental that participation, collaboration, transparency happen to be democratic

113

values that the government can espouse that are both democratic and capitalistic? If we

look at the foundational documents associated with open Government, they are meant to

promote transparency and participation, core values of democracy. However, the

outcomes of the directive are talked about in terms of innovation and are being linked

with private sector growth and public sector tightening.

And new developments in government also seem to suggest a move away from

technology adopted in efforts to espouse and advance democratic values. On March 11,

2011, Barack Obama established the Office of Good Government21. The Good

Governance Office is a portal for government review and is filed under ethics on the

White House homepage. Technological inclusions are made within the site, but they are

secondary to the idea of citizens‘ ability to review government activity. They are tools

for sorting data. Open Government is linked to Good Government, but there is no overt

connect between Open Government and Good Government.

The separation of Open Government and new interactive technologies may rest upon a

recognition of new technology development as a source of innovation—much needed

innovation in a suffering economy—and possibly associated with several articles

assessing the value of the transparency products. Data reviewers at the General

Accounting Office, the Sunlight Foundation, Office of Management and Budget Watch,

Information Week, and Wired have all found flaws in reporting of Freedom of

Information Act compliance and in posting of budget allocations. In a series of articles,

they put into question the transparency of Obama‘s transparency in his transparency

21 http://www.whitehouse.gov/goodgovernment/

114

initiatives (GAO, Kravets, Montalbano, Rosen-Amy 2011). If the focus of the Directive

becomes technology and innovation, then the actual data may not be a primary concern.

It is important to note that the majority of current innovations rest on the relationship

between the government and its data management practices. The foundations of this

relationship lie in the establishment of data practices stemming from the E-Government

Act of 2002. The Act spurred the development of internal business practices achieved

through technology that was developed to support transactional processes. The mindset

associated with e-government is that of data transaction within the government and

between government and citizens. The legislation and culture of e-government revolves

around enhancing and developing practices to better the business relationship of

government and citizens through information technology.

Obama essentially issued a directive with no clear metrics for evaluation to guide agency

understanding of prioritization for adoption. He placed democratic values of

transparency, participation, and collaboration at the center of the adoption of new

technology and engagement practices for federal workers. Part of the nature of

technology push is that the technology developments are nascent. There is no clear

understanding of the impacts or value of the tools in the business, non-profit,

international, or domestic world. The technology is not yet well enough established to

understand the full benefits or costs. In this, innovation becomes an organic occurrence

as agencies develop technologies, but those technologies were adopted by clear effort of

the executive.

115

With the introduction of Open Government, the relationship is changing or expanding

from enhancing the more internal business systems of government to enhancing the more

external citizen government relationship through new information systems. For the most

part, the context of the directive and its organizational provisions are to enhance the

external aspects of government, data for the purposes of transparency for citizens,

collaboration and participation with citizens. The focus of development of information

systems and the inclusion of interactive technologies into government is developing the

external citizen to government relationship and suggests changing or expanding the

organizational structure to include citizens as a part of the daily operations of

government.

It is too early to understand the impacts of the shift or expansion from information

systems as developing the internal business practices of government to the more external

citizen participation in the everyday activities of government. However, it is possible to

note that while the facing of the systems is changing or adding a new dimension, the

government and government services are at the center of the system. That is, while there

are opportunities for citizens to extract and use data and for them to add to the expertise

of government and for them to offer ideas and comments on some of the activities of

government, the feedback loop is to the government body. And the government body

decides ultimately, what to do with that feedback and information. Thus, while a bigger

network is created, the government is at the center of that network and is the locus of

power.

It appears in language that increases in democracy are driving the Open Government

movement, but it also appears that there is no value structure to assess increases in

116

democracy or democratic outcomes associated with the Open Government directive.

Equally, there is no structure to account for the technologies developed, the usefulness of

those technologies or any efficiencies that might be associated with those technologies. It

may be that development of technology has reached a point where strategic direction is

necessary to achieve both democratic and business goals through the use of interactive

Internet technologies.

It is fair to say that any president serving in the early and mid-2000s would have had to

consider e-government. The technology‘s existence in the market and displayed business

value was too strong for any leader or leadership body to ignore. In addition, the method

of introduction, a great push into technological revolution by Congress and by President

was necessary for systemic and consistent adoption of the technology at the time. It also

fair to say that had any president other than Obama been elected in 2008, the focus on

incorporating interactive Internet technologies into government would not have been as

strong and may not have existed at all. Certainly, no other President would have

introduced new technology development through Open Government as his or her first act

of governance.

However, by not having an overwhelming push into the newest technological revolution

and by not including value metrics for performance and by couching technological efforts

in democratic language, sustainability of Open Government and new technology is placed

solely on the shoulders of agencies. After Obama leaves office, there is no guarantee that

the next administration will push Open Government or will support the recourses

necessary to perpetuate new interactive Internet technologies. It may be that a demand

pull by the citizens and by government workers will force the next president to sustain,

117

even develop, new interactive technologies. But, with no real estimation of value and no

champion for the effort, new interactive Internet technological advancement in

government is at jeopardy of the chopping block at the next budget war.

118

SUPPLIMENTAL 3.1 OPEN GOVERNMENT SITE BY AGENCY

Agency

Open Government Site

Agency for International

Development http://www.usaid.gov/open/

Corporation for National and

Community Service http://www.nationalservice.gov/home/open/index.asp

Council on Environmental Quality http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ceq

Department of Agriculture http://usda.gov/open

Department of Commerce http://open.commerce.gov/

Department of Defense http://open.dodlive.mil/

Department of Education http://www2.ed.gov/about/open.html

Department of Energy http://energy.gov/open/

Department of Health and Human

Services http://www.hhs.gov/open/

Department of Homeland Security http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/open-government.shtm

Department of Housing and Urban

Development http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/open

Department of Justice http://www.justice.gov/open/

Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov/open/

Department of State http://www.state.gov/open/

Department of the Interior http://www.doi.gov/open/

Department of the Treasury http://www.treasury.gov/open/

Department of Transportation http://www.dot.gov/open/

Department of Veterans Affairs http://www4.va.gov/open/

Environmental Protection Agency http://epa.gov/open/

General Services Administration http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105340

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration http://www.nasa.gov/open/

National Archives and Records

Administration http://www.archives.gov/open/

National Science Foundation http://nsf.gov/open/

Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open.html

Office of Management and Budget

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/04/07/OMB-

and-Open-Government/

Office of National Drug Control

Policy http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ondcp

Office of Personnel Management http://opm.gov/open/

Office of Science and Technology

Policy http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ostp

119

Office of the US Trade

Representative http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ustr

Small Business Administration http://sba.gov/open/

Social Security Administration http://www.ssa.gov/open/

120

SUPPLIMENTAL 3.2 OPEN GOVERNMENT PLAN BY AGENCY

Agency Open Government Plan

USAID http://www.usaid.gov/open/USAIDOpenGovernmentPlan2010-04-07.pdf

CNCS http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/10_0626_open_government_plan.pdf

CEQ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/100407-ceq-opengov-plan.pdf

DOA http://usda.gov/open/Blog.nsf/dx/USDA_Open_Government_Plan_Version1_1.pdf/$file/USDA_Open_Government_Plan_Version1_1.pdf

DOC http://open.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/DOC%20Open%20Government%20Plan%20v%201%201%20Final.pdf

DOD http://open.dodlive.mil/files/2010/06/DoD-Open-Gov-Plan-v1-1.pdf

DOEd http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/opengov-plan.pdf

DOE http://energy.gov/open/documents/FINAL_DOE_OGPVer1-2b_07July2010.pdf

HHS http://energy.gov/open/documents/FINAL_DOE_OGPVer1-2b_07July2010.pdf

DHS http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs_open_government_plan.pdf

HUD http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/open/plan/og-plan-v1.1.pdf

DO http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-open-government-plan.pdf

DOL http://www.dol.gov/open/OGDplan.pdf

DOS http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/139811.pdf

DOI http://www.doi.gov/open/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=28151

Treasury http://www.treasury.gov/open/docs/open_government_plan.pdf

DOT http://www.dot.gov/open/pdf/DOT_Open_Gov_Plan_V1.2_06252010.pdf

VA http://www4.va.gov/OPEN/docs/open_govt_plan.pdf

EPA http://www.epa.gov/open/EPAOpenGovernmentPlan_11.pdf

GSA http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/admin/OpenGovPlan_v_1_1.pdf

NASA http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/440945main_NASA%20Open%20Government%20Plan.pdf

NARA http://www.archives.gov/open/Open%20Government%20Plan%20-%20Version%201.1.pdf

NSF http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10049/nsf10049.pdf

NRC http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/philosophy/nrc-open-gov-plan.pdf

OMB http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/omb/plan

ONDCP http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ondcp/plan

OPM http://opm.gov/open/includes/OPM%20Open%20Government%20Plan_v1.2_062510.pdf

OSTP http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ostp/plan

OTR http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around/eop/ustr/plan

SBA http://sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/sba_open_gov_plan.html

SSA http://www.ssa.gov/open/10-617OGP.pdf

121

SUPPLIMENTAL 3.3 OPEN GOVERNMENT AGENCY SELF-EVALUATION CHECK LIST

Open Government Plan Evaluation Criteria

Directions

The enclosed list of 30 criteria is drawn directly from the text of the Open Government

Directive. Please return this form to the White House Open Government team at

opengov@ostp.gov by 5 pm on Friday, April 23rd. To complete the self-evaluation form,

please indicate a response to each of the criteria as follows:

Red (R) – plan does not satisfy the requirement

Yellow (Y) – plan partially satisfies the requirement

Green (G) – plan fully satisfies the requirement

N/A - not applicable because agency does not engage in that activity or area

Please include any explanatory comments on the last page.

Optional: If you wish, please provide the page range for the relevant section of the plan

that is the basis for your answer to each question.

Formulating the Plan in the Open

1.) Was multidisciplinary collaboration involved in formulating the plan?

2.) Was public consultation involved in crafting the plan?

3.) Was the plan published in an open format, online, on time and on the open

government page and with raw data?

4.) Is there a plan for continued public engagement as part of the review and modification

of the open government plan?

Transparency Strategic Action Plan

5.) Does the plan contain a strategic action plan that inventories agency high-value

information currently available for download?

6.) Is there a plan to foster the public‘s use of this information to increase public

knowledge and promote public scrutiny of agency services?

7.) Does the action plan identify high value information not yet available and establish a

reasonable timeline for publication online in open formats with specific target dates?

122

8.) For agencies providing public information in electronic format: Is there a plan for

timely publication of underlying data for public information maintained in electronic

format?

9.) Does the plan identify key audiences for information and their needs, and the agency

endeavors to publish high-value information for each of those audiences in the most

accessible forms and formats?

10.) Is there a plan to demarcate educational material as free for re-use?

11.) Does the plan detail compliance with transparency initiative guidance, and where

gaps exist, detailed steps the agency is taking and the timing to meet the requirements for

each initiative:

Data.gov

eRulemaking

IT Dashboard

Recovery.gov

USAspending.gov

12.) Are there details of proposed actions (with clear milestones) to inform the public of

significant actions and business of the agency (e.g. agency public meetings, briefings,

press conferences, town halls)?

13.) Does the plan address existing record management requirements by providing:

Website link

Identifying and scheduling all electronic records

Timely transfer of all permanently valuable records to the National Archives

14.) Does the plan address FOIA by providing:

Website link?

Staffing, organizational structure, and process for responding to FOIA requests?

Assessment of capacity to analyze, coordinate and respond to requests in a timely

manner?

If there is a significant FOIA backlog, details on how the agency will reduce the

backlog by 10% each year?

123

15.) Does the plan address congressional requests by providing a:

Website link?

Staffing, organizational structure, and process for responding to Congressional

requests?

16.) Does the plan address declassification, if applicable by providing a:

Website link?

Where the public can learn about declassification programs, accessing

declassified materials, and provide input about what types of information should

be prioritized for declassification?

Participation

17.) Does the plan explain how the agency will improve participation, including steps the

agency will take to revise its current practices to increase opportunities for public

participation in and feedback on the agency‘s core mission activities (including proposed

changes to internal management and administrative policies to improve participation)?

18.) Does the plan describe and provide links to websites for the public to engage in

existing participatory processes?

19.) Are there proposals for new feedback mechanisms (including innovative tools and

practices for public engagement)?

Collaboration

Does the plan list steps the agency will take to revise its current practices to further

collaboration:

20.) With other Federal and non-Federal government agencies? Including the use of

technology platforms to this end?

21.) With the public? Including the use of technology platforms?

22.) With non-profit and private entities? Including technology platforms?

23.) Are there links to websites that describe existing collaboration efforts of the agency?

24.) Does the plan describe the Innovative methods (e.g. prizes and collaborations) to

increase collaboration with the private sector, non-profit, and academic communities?

Flagship Initiative

124

25.) Does the plan include at least one specific flagship engagement?

26.) Does the description provide an overview of the initiative: how it addresses one or

more of the three openness principles and how it aims to improve agency operations?

27.) Does it identify external partners for collaboration (if appropriate)?

28.) Is there a plan for public participation in contributing innovative ideas to the

flagship?

29.) Does the description explain how the improvements to transparency, participation

and/or collaboration will be measured?

30.) Does the flagship include a description of sustainability and room for improvement?

125

SUPPLIMENTAL 3.4 OPEN GOVERNMENT INNOVATIONS QUALITATIVE DATABASE

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

Open Government Innovations Qualitative Database Variable Description

Variable Name

Variable Description

Agency Name of United States federal agency

responsible for specified Open Government

plan

Open Government Link Link to specific agency Open Government

plan

Project/Initiative Name Name of individual initiatives or projects

outlined and associated with specific Open

Government plan

Project/Initiative Link Link to individual initiatives or projects

outlined and associated with specific Open

Government plan

Project/Initiative Start Date The date/expected date that the individual

initiative or project was launched by the

agency

Project/Initiative Status The status (operational, in process,

complete, ongoing) of the individual

project/initiative

Functionality/Purpose of Project/Initiative The given function or purpose of the

individual project/initiative (ex. idea

sourcing, blog, data tracking, wiki,

collaboration, video, application,

education, report gathering, competition,

data, news, etc.)

Government Partner Agencies A list of the government agencies

partnering with the specific agency to

achieve the individual project/initiative

Non-Government Partner Agencies A list of the non-government agencies

partnering with the specific agency to

achieve the individual project/initiative

Business Partner Agencies A list of the business agencies partnering

with the specific agency to achieve the

individual project/initiative

Citizen Partners A binary indication (yes, no) of the direct

involvement of citizens in achieving the

individual project/initiative

126

Flagship Initiative A binary indication (yes, no) of the status

of the individual project/initiative as the

age Open Government Flagship

project/initiative

Internal/External An indicator for whether or not the primary

audience for the individual

project/initiative is meant for internal

agency users or external agency

participants

Transparency/Participation/Collaboration/I

nnovation

An indication of the primary Open

Government goal (transparency,

participation, collaboration, or innovation)

addressed by the individual

project/initiative

Project/Initiative Uses IdeaScale A binary indication (yes, no) of the use of

the IdeaScale tool within the individual

project/initiative

Temporal/Permanent Website Addition An indication (temporary, permanent) of

the longevity of the addition of the

individual project/initiative to the specific

agency website

Open Government Webpage linked to

Agency Webpage

A binary indication (yes, no) of the linking

of the Open Government plan on the

landing page of the specific agency

Self-Evaluation Complete A binary indication (yes, no) of the specific

agency’s completion of the Office of

Management and Budget produced self-

evaluation of the individual agency Open

Government plan

Open Government plan Incorporated into

Strategic Plan

A binary indication (yes, no) of the

inclusion of Open Government in the

strategic plan of the specific agency

Open Government plan Related to Strategic

Plan

A binary indication (yes, no) of the

inclusion of the mention of the

incorporation of Open Government in the

specific agency strategic plan

Strategic Plan Dates Applicable dates (timespan) of the specific

agency strategic plan

Open Government plan Incorporated into

Annual Report

A binary indication (yes, no) of the

inclusion of Open Government in the

annual report of the specific agency

Annual Report Date Date the specific agency produced their

annual report

127

Project/Initiative cost The budget allocated (if listed) for the

individual project/initiative

Tag 1 A one word description of the individual

project/initiative

Tag 2 A one word description of the individual

project/initiative

Tag 3 A one word description of the individual

project/initiative

Contact Name The name of the contact provided as

responsible for the Open Government

Initiative for the specific agency

Contact Title The employment title of the individual

contact provided as responsible for the

Open Government Initiative for the specific

agency

Contact Email The email address of the individual contact

provided as responsible for the Open

Government Initiative for the specific

agency

128

Chapter 4: Of Starfish and Spiders, The Architecture of Interaction

INTRODUCTION

As research in the previous chapter indicates, implementation and development of

interactive Internet technologies in government has occurred largely because of

structured efforts, primarily through the Open Government Directive, to promote

adoption of these technologies. Researched in this chapter are changes in the

architectural structure and in the ecology of government websites incorporating

interactive Internet technologies.

OVERVIEW

Provided within the chapter is an analysis of the Internet architecture that is associated

with transactional and interactive web spaces. A hypothesis of research is that the

transactional and interactive architectures will differ. To test the hypothesis an Internet

mapping tool was applied to transactional web spaces and interactive web spaces

associated with transparency, participation, and collaboration dictated in the Open

Government directive. Findings indicate that transactional and interactive web spaces are

different.

A secondary purpose of the chapter is to observe more in depth the interactive

technologies currently being adopted by the government and to understand any

organizational or democratic outcomes associated with those technologies. Findings

129

indicate that it is too early to guess at the structure of government that will emerge, but

that some of the technologies have more success at meeting the goals for transparency,

participation, and collaboration set forth in the Open Government directive.

THE STARFISH AND THE SPIDER

In Emergence, Steven Johnson opens his book with a story of ant colonization (Johnson

2001, 29-31). He visits a friend in Palo Alto who studies behavioral ecology. The

subject of her current study is the behavior of harvester ants in association with their

environment. As he observes the harvester ants in their enclosure, he notes that if he taps

on the glass of the case, the harvester ants secret away the queen to an enclosure deep

within the colony. Equally, he notes that the ants have placed the garbage heap for their

colony as far outside the colony as possible and they have placed their cemetery as far as

possible from the garbage heap and from the colony. He also notes that the ants do not

exhibit any of these behaviors at the behest of the queen. Rather, they exhibit these

behaviors because they are biologically programmed to do so.

The queen serves the function of producing eggs and larvae for the colony. It is in the

ants‘ biological self-interest to protect their life source. Thus, they protect her and keep

her well-fed so that young will be produced to replace the dead. However, the duties

associated with her status as ‗queen‘ do not extend to organizing the colony or directing

the behaviors of the worker ants. The decisions to house the garbage heap and the

cemetery away from each other and away from the colony are innate organizing rules of

the ants. The moniker and endowment ‗queen‘ is human invention. In reality if the

130

queen did not exist, the ants‘ behavior would not change—outside of searching for a new

source of eggs and larvae production in addition to their daily duties of foraging for food

and executing the processes necessary to sustain the colony. In effect, the ants colonize

around a resource set and autonomously carry out the tasks of the colony.

In their book, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless

Organizations, Brafman and Beckstrom apply the ant analogy to historical organizations

of people. They describe two leadership forms, the spider and the starfish. The spider is

a form in which many members make up the legs, body, head, and web. Organizations

that are spider like take a long time to form and each component builds on the next, like

an intertwined hierarchical organization. The drawback to spider organizations is that if

you cut a part of the web or a part of the spider body, the organization is seriously

damaged and may not be able to recover. The spider organization is much like the

organizations that run under more hierarchical command and control structures associated

with the transactional world. The starfish is an organization that has a central nervous

system, but when cut develops a new central nervous system that survives beyond the

original body (Brafman and Beckstrom 2006). The starfish organization is resilient and

self-organized and is leaderless outside of electric pulses that result from each nerve

action. Organizations that are considered networked are much more like starfish than

spiders.

The organizational starfish or spider structure rests on the architecture of the colony. The

architecture of the ant colony arises from behaviors that are innate. The architecture of

the spider‘s web arises from purposeful design. The architecture of interactive Internet

technologies and its relationship to the larger organization and whether it will add to the

131

web or contribute to the colony is not yet known. Popular myth suggests that as more

interactive technologies are introduced, that organizational structures will flatten and

government will become networked—a self-organized body to meet service needs. But,

as Barabasi points out in his book, Linked, organizations, especially organizations as

complex as government organizations have a strict architecture to which they must abide

(Barabasi 2003, 7).

THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTERACTION

In his book, Linked, Albert-Laszlo Barabasi notes that it wasn‘t until the birth of the

Internet that we have been able to observe collective human behavior in such a large

scale (Barabasi 2003, 227). With the Internet, we can explore the fundamental links in

the architecture of humanity that hold communities, governments, cultures, and societies

together. We can also understand the changing shape of that architecture given new links

and new technologies. As Barabasi notes, while complex organizations are strictly

structured, those structures do change and the networks within the structure take on

different forms with different functions (Barabasi 2003, 229).

Following in Figure 4.1 is a map of the Internet. Depicted in the map are the extent and

network path of various organizations (detailed in the key). For this chapter, small maps

of new interactive technologies will lend understanding of the larger Internet map of the

information systems of government. The primary quandary from research is to

understand if emerging interactive technologies of i-government differ architecturally

from the transactional technologies of e-government.

132

Figure 4.1 Opte Map of the Internet

Opte Map of the Internet: http://www.opte.org/maps/

The architecture of the Internet is built by and is a reflection of human interaction in a

non-physical space where ideas flow and knowledge is exchanged. Within that space,

natural structures appear, networks, hierarchies, and linked by function and by use. The

goal of this chapter is to explore the functionalities and attributes of new interactive

Internet technologies in government and to understand the architectures that underpin

them.

133

MAPPING THE INTERACTIVE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE

It is a hypothesis of this research that the basic architectures of transactional web spaces

differs from interactive web spaces. As the graphs included in analysis show,

transactional spaces do differ from interactive spaces. To understand the architecture of

transactional and interactive spaces, a web architecture analysis tool was chosen. The

tool used to map the underlying architecture of the web spaces included in analysis was

developed by Marcel Salathe. Dr. Salathe directs a research group in the Department of

Biology at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University

and developed the mapping tool for the purpose of allowing users to view web pages as

graphs. Viewing a graph of a web page allows users to understand the components

included in a web space. Components include text pages, divider pages, pages with

tables that allow for inputs, pages with static tables and forms, pages that are images,

pages that include the base code for the web site, and miscellaneous pages. The mapping

tool is based on code developed by Traer Physics at Princeton University. Links to and

the source code for the mapping tool are included in the Supplimental.

To deploy the mapping tool, a user accesses and enters a web address into the mapping

interface. The mapping tool accesses the web space associated with the address entered

into the interface. The mapping tool executes a reader code that reads the coding of the

web space and that parses web pages into critical elements, like tables, links, and text

based on the specific web page coding. As the reader identifies the type of page

presented to it, a color is assigned to match the code. For example, if the reader identifies

134

that the web page is a table, it assigns the color red to the page. That page is represented

in the resultant graph with a red dot. Each page in the web space is assigned a color

representing the function of the page and linked appropriately, as dictated by the web

space code, in a final graph. The final graph is a spider-like web indicating the

components of the web space.

DECODING THE COLORS OF THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE MAPS

Blue: for links (the A coding tag) to external web pages

Red: for tables (TABLE, TR and TD coding tags) that allow for inputs

Green: for the DIV coding tag that separates major pages within a web site

Violet: for image (the IMG coding tag) pages within a website

Yellow: for forms (FORM, INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT and OPTION coding tags)

Orange: for linebreaks and blockquotes (BR, P, and BLOCKQUOTE coding tags)

Black: the HTML tag, the root node

Gray: all other coding tags

To test the tool, a random series of thirty agency websites that included transactional and

interactive web spaces was chosen. After testing, it was observed that transactional pages

include tables and forms for the input of numerical and text data. Resultant graphs are

therefore comprised of more red and yellow dots. Interactive pages involve more links

and more divided pages. The links are to external partner pages and to hosted

conversation or video space. The divider pages separate participation and collaboration

activity from the primary web space. Thus, the graphs of more interactive web spaces

have more blue and green dots. Following are select examples of the architecture maps

of transactional and interactive web spaces.

135

THE TRANSACTIONAL WEB

The majority of the technology implementation that is associated with the E-Government

Act of 2002 involves some form of transaction. In its most simple form, the technology

involved the establishment of a website where people could gain access to basic

information about the purpose, activities, and events associated with a given government

agency. In its more complex form, the technology involved some exchange of

information. This exchange of information typically involved some input of information

for the purpose of executing a form to apply for services, apply for a license, or pay a

fine.

The Social Security Administration website, depicted in Figure 4.2, involves several

examples of the transactional web. For the purposes of exploring the functionalities and

architecture of the transactional web, the Apply for Benefits portion of the site was

chosen. While the example is from the current website, it exemplifies what would have

existed in 2002 and does not involve any new interactive Internet technologies. A picture

of the opening page for the Apply for Benefits portion of the website appears below:

136

Figure 4.2 Transactional Internet Space Apply for Benefits

Social Security Administration, Apply for Benefits http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/getservices-

apply.htm

The opening page of the Apply for Benefits section of the Social Security Administration

is a series of navigational links directing various audiences to the appropriate online

application form. As can be seen in the titles of the navigational links to the various

application pages, the Social Security Administration serves users of all ages. These

services are direct in that the online application for benefits initiates the benefits receipt

process. If using the online form, there is no need to visit a representative or government

office. The website provides the transaction space for services. This ability to obtain

services via an inline format was the intent of the 2002 E-Government Act.

Over time, the number of services offered has increased, but very little has changed in the

functionality of the online transaction process. The process for the website is a form

137

exterior that citizens fill out with the data requested. The form is backed by a database

that houses the data once entered. The data are accessible to government agents once

entered and submitted by the citizens. The government agent processes the data and

executes the benefits transaction once analyzed and the citizen is deemed appropriate for

benefits receipt. The online process differs only from the paper process in that the

citizen enters the data directly into the database instead of writing it on paper, sending it

to the government agent and the agent entering the data into the database. The online

process is a simple transaction of data.

It should be noted that accessibility measures have been built into the benefits application

website. Measures have been taken to provide users with varied text sizes for ease in

reading. And, as their Flagship initiative for the Open Government directive, the Social

Security Administration developed the Apply for Benefits site in Spanish, opening online

services to a wider audience. While these measures to improve the services of the site

increase usability, they do not change the transactional nature of the website. An

example form from the application for benefits site follows in Figure 4.3:

138

Figure 4.3 Social Security Administration Apply for Benefits Interface

Social Security Administration Benefits Application: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps6z/iClaim/rib

On the left face (from the citizen perspective) of the web site are informational links that

connect to information related to benefits summaries, the application process, and

policies of the Social Security Administration and the federal government. On the right

is the initiating application for benefits. There are two buttons that connect to forms

additional to the website. The button ―Estimate my Benefits‖ takes the applicant to an

external form where the applicant enters information to determine the current status of

benefits. The second button takes the applicant to the benefits application. If the

applicant finishes the form on the right facing side of the website, they are directed to

another form. Eventually, the applicant fills the forms necessary to complete the

application for benefits.

139

The data collected with the preliminary benefits form is data that directs the citizen to the

next appropriate form in the chain of forms. Depicted below is a map of the transactional

―Apply for Benefits‖ website of the Social Security Administration.

In Figure 4.4 below, the informational links can be seen as blue dots. The transactional

spaces, the tables that house the information submitted through the forms, appear as red

dots on the graph. The grey dots represent miscellaneous space. The yellow dots

represent forms that appear when data entry is complete. And, the violet dots represent

images in the web space.

Figure 4.4 Social Security Administration Transactional Architecture Map

Social Security Administration Apply for Benefits Internet architecture map:

http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/getservices-apply.htm. Created February 9, 2011.

140

The top right hand corner of the diagram represents the informational links found on the

Apply for Benefits website. The links take the user to basic information about benefits,

policies of the organization, and application information. The red dots represent the

forms in the web space. Collected in these forms is information and data necessary to

process the benefits application transaction. The yellow dots represent the final forms

submitted to the organization and which the citizen can print. Overall, the transactional

web space is comprised mostly of red dots that represent tables where data is entered to

complete the transaction process.

The transactional web space differs significantly from those that involve interactive

Internet technologies. Where the transactional space is comprised mostly of tables for

input, or red dots, and forms, or yellow dots, interactive space is comprised of links and

images, which are found in the interactive space.

THE INTERACTIVE WEB

The interactive web differs from the transactional web in that it involves accessing and

working with information in a single web space, offering feedback or ideas on data and

information present in a web space, and contributing to the development of the elements

within the web space. Architecturally, developers must build spaces for forums and

spaces where connections to data and information as well as partner spaces are present.

This development means that there are fewer tables where data is entered to be translated

into forms and more divisions to separate out conversation and interactive spaces, along

with more links within the website architecture.

141

Built into each aspect of the technologies associated with the Open Government directive

is some form of interaction. For the technologies associated with transparency, the

primary interactive components are the ability to download data, the ability to suggest

data sets, and the ability to rank and visualize data. Some of the transparency sites have

also developed interactive data communities where citizens, organizations, and agencies

can hold conversation about the data and where developers can work to create tools to

help manage the data. The technology associated with participation sites typically

involves the ability to offer ideas and feedback on a given set of policies, to work with an

interactive tool, or a wiki-like space for development of documents or data sets. The

technology associated with collaboration varies widely, but often involves agencies

posting a need and citizens responding to the need. At times, those meeting those needs

can be achieved in one space. Citizens, organizations, and agency participants log into a

work space and work within it as an employee would. Other times, the spaces involve

the ability to sort and rank and respond to challenges. And, others involve micro

blogging and other communication activities.

Because the basic functions of transactional spaces and interactive spaces are different, it

is hypothesized that the architectures of the websites will differ. Indeed, as the following

examples, broken out by components related to the Open Government directive, show

that the basic architectures are different.

142

Transparency

Transparency efforts comprise the majority of technology developments associated with

the open government directive. For the most part, they involve posting new data sets and

developing data portals for consolidated government data from across agencies. The

purpose of these portals is to provide easy access to data and information to citizens,

organizations, and agencies from across agencies in one location so that they can easily

retrieve that data and review the progress of agencies and hold them accountable.

A large portion of the technology involved includes web fronting of a library of data that

is collected across agencies. Behind the web fronting are links to the data, which is

submitted by agencies and housed on their servers, accessible through the links to the

portal. For many of the portals instituted since 2009, technical elements that allow users

to rank the quality of data and to request and even add new data sets have been added to

the portal. Additionally, many of the new data portals offer tools to assist in managing

and visualizing the data and they offer data user communities to discuss and apply the

data in different scenarios and situations.

The transparency site chosen for exploration is the Open Government flagship Data.gov.

Data.gov was the Obama administrations first effort at open government. The underlying

motivation for the site was that open government rests upon a foundation of transparency.

A large component of transparency is provision of data. Equally, data is a major

component of policy making and can play a role in innovation, which are additional

components to transparency for open government. Provision of data serves three primary

purposes. The first purpose open data serves is the ability for citizens to access data

143

about the government to hold the government accountable. The second is to provide

access to data so that citizens can use the data to understand and assist in making better

policy decisions for the country. A third purpose in provision relates to the development

of business and business products that are underpinned by the data available through

data.gov. A fourth motivation for providing consolidated data through a portal is so that

agencies have access to data about other agencies. This access provides an opportunity

for government to understand itself better and possibly become more efficient by

eliminating the duplication of data gathering and production efforts.

The data.gov site contains two primary types of data, agency specific data and geodata

which are geographical data submitted by all agencies. In addition to providing data

through data.gov, the Obama administration also provides tools to assist citizens in

managing and visualizing data. These tools are developed by internal government

agencies as well as citizen developers who provide the tools to the site at no charge. The

primary purpose of the tools is to offer users of the data.gov data the ability to compare

and contrast data, to visualize data, to add a programming interface to an existing website

that will allow for the data on data.gov to be posted to the external website, and to

develop chart, graphs, and other elements that make the data more usable. In addition to

data tools, developers have also created applications that make it possible for data to be

accessed from data.gov on mobile devices. This ability to connect to data via a mobile

device allows the data to be taken out into the field or applied to services like mapping

and weather applications.

Since its inception 379,943 raw and geospatial datasets have been added to the site, 943

applications have been developed by the government to assist citizens in managing and

144

visualizing the data, 236 applications have been developed by citizens to use and

visualize the data, 44 mobile applications to access the data in multiple locations through

a mobile device have been created. More than 170 agencies and sub-agencies have

submitted data to the data.gov site and provided nearly 260 data contacts to citizens for

data. The complete number of tools and data sets submitted to the data.gov portal by

agency is included in the Supplimental. The private sector has built 236 new applications

using the data on the data.gov website. Other states and nations have adopted the open

data concept, 15 other nations have established open data sites, and 29 states, 11 cities,

and one Native American tribe have also adopted open data initiatives. 22

The data.gov website is comprised of a web front for links to pages that contain links to

data and data tools at various agencies. Additionally, included in the website are links to

various spaces that allow the user to join a community of data users, join a developer

community to develop applications and mobile applications for the data.gov site, and

links to site information metrics. There is also a space for feedback to the site owners

and to site developers. For the most part, data is not housed in the data.gov portal. The

portal simply acts as a convening web space for data and data tools. A picture of the site

follows in Figure 4.5:

22 http://www.data.gov/, retrieved April 3, 2011

145

Figure 4.5 Interactive Transparency Site Data.gov

Data.gov: http://www.data.gov/

Hits represent the number of times a visitor lands on a certain page within a website. In

the approximate six months that data.gov was live in 2009, the website received

37,614,101 hits. In its first full live year, 2010, Data.gov received more than three times

the number of hits than in 2009 for a total of 123,350,557 hits. In 2010, these hits were

made by more than two million discrete visitors, or people who click into and search the

site. Following in Table 4.1 are the number of visitors by month to the data.gov website

in the year 2010.

146

Table 4.1 Data.gov Monthly Visitor Statistics 2010

January 237,704

February 193,025

March 200,886

April 174,955

May 210,285

June 159,656

July 146,795

August 146,069

September 146,380

October 162,384

November 166,265

December 138,773

The site consistently receives approximately 150,000 visitors per month, with most of the

traffic occurring in January and May with the spring receiving the most traffic of the

seasons. The government is not allowed to add cookies to their websites. Thus, unless a

user signs into a government site, information about users is not collected.

As part of the fulfillment of the Open Government directive, agencies are required to post

at least three high-quality data sets to data.gov. A high-quality data set is one that has

been subjected to strict quality controls and been reviewed by multiple people within an

agency to ensure correctness and accuracy of the data. From May 2009 through

December 2009, data.gov received approximately 900 suggested datasets from the public.

A select group of representatives from each federal agency reviewed the suggested

datasets from the public. Their responses fell into four categories; data already published,

actionable, potentially actionable, not actionable. Of the data recommended by the

147

public, 16 percent were already published on Data.gov, 26 percent of the suggestions will

be published in the near future, 36 percent of the suggestions could be published at a later

date, and the remaining 22 percent of the suggestions could be published due primarily to

security, privacy, or technology constraints.

The largest data sets in the database are associated with the Census, the majority portion

of the Department of Commerce data, data collected for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration or weather data, also part of the Department of Commerce

data, and the data to support the geodata portal, which is associated with the Department

of the Interior. Following is an example of the data page that a user would see if he or

she entered the data catalogue to access data. Technically, the web page is a basic web

page with text and links to data files. The text on the page is a basic description of the

data, including source, date, keyword descriptions, and information about downloading.

The links are to agencies and to the data itself. Also included on the page is the

capability for voting to rank the quality of the data. Users may enter a login site through

the page and vote on the quality of data.

148

Figure 4.6 Data.gov Data Interface

149

Downloads represent the number of times a user clicks on the "XML" or "CSV" links in

the Raw Data Catalogs to download datasets or tools in the Tool Catalog on the data.gov

website. The total number of downloads in 2010 was 1,337,352. Following in Table 4.2

are the number of downloads by month from the data.gov website in the year 2010.

Table 4.2 Data.gov Monthly Downloads 2010

January 126,637

February 92,389

March 110,941

April 103,392

May 143,362

June 108,731

July 76,106

August 70,614

September 143,697

October 139,928

November 109,249

December 112,306

According to the data.gov website, over the history of data.gov, the majority of visitors

download data related to geography and the environment. Second to geography and

environment are data set downloads that are related to the general category of finance.23

Of the geography and environment downloads, the primary data set downloaded deals

with earthquakes and was most downloaded in March of 2011, just after the earthquake

in Japan. Second to the earthquake data set, the top downloaded data set of all time is a

23 Data.gov metrics, downloads by category:

http://www.data.gov/metric/visitorstats/monthlyredirectbydatacategory.

150

data set that deals with loans and grants that are administered overseas. The United

States Greenbook, or grants and loans overseas, has been downloaded more than 50,000

times. The top health data sets, which compose the second largest category of

downloads, downloaded deal with product recalls and data related to the food pyramid.24

Outside of general notes about the number of times downloaded, no other details about

the downloaded data sets are available.

Newly added sections to the data.gov web space include data communities. Within the

communities are blogs, Twitter and Really Simple Syndication feeds, forums,

information links, and access to specific groups of data and data tools of interest to the

specific data community. These community pages also include items like links to partner

site, specific calculators and visualizations of the data prepared by members of the

community. They also include links to collaboration spaces, like Challenge.gov and

comments spaces like IdeaScale. Membership to the communities is required for users

that would like to contribute data and information and who would like to post comments,

blogs, and tools. Members come from across government agencies, the public, and

partner organizations. Members can request that various functionalities and data sets be

added to the community as available. The owners of data.gov work with the community

to make it as usable and complete as the users desire. There are currently five major

data.gov data communities, Health, Open Data, Restore the Gulf, Law and Semantic

Web. There are a number of communities specifically associated with the geodata portal

of the data.gov site as well. Following is the front page of the Health Community.

24 Data.gov metrics, top data sets for all time downloaded:

http://www.data.gov/metric/visitorstats/top10datasetreport/MostdownloadedAllTime

151

Figure 4.7 Data.gov Health Data Community

Data.gov Health Community: http://www.data.gov/communities/health

The data.gov web space is constantly under construction and growing. Following in

Figure 4.8 is a map of the main web space. As can be seen in the map, the major

components of the web space, flow from the central coding node, the black node

surrounded by grey dots.

152

Figure 4.8 Data.gov Architecture Map

The map of the interactive data web space differs significantly from the transactional

benefits application space. Where the transactional map is filled with red and yellow

dots, indicating tables and forms, the data.gov web space map is filled with green and

blue dots, indicating page breaks and links. The green dots are page separations from the

content of the major page, or the web front for data, to the data catalogue, tool catalogue,

community spaces, applications, and metrics and gallery spaces. The yellow dots in the

153

bottom left corner are a feedback section to the website to request new data additions to

the web space. To suggest new data sets, users must fill out and submit a form to the

data.gov owners. The large, flower like web just above and to the right of the

concentrated yellow dots, with green, blue, then purple dots is a gallery of featured data

sets and events associated with data.gov. The purple dots are images of the projects.

When clicked, the image opens a link to the data or event. The webs at the top of the

map on the extreme left and the extreme right with blue dots at the end are links to the

community space which lead the user to a new interactive web space. The majority of

the rest of the space are links to data, tools, and data sets.

The interactive space is larger and is more connected to other spaces than more limited

transactional space. It is also filled with images, and links to more interactive spaces

where the transactional space links were to information sources. The forms associated

with the transactional space were the end product of the space whereas in the

transactional space, the forms are to communicate additions to the web space. These

communications are responded to and, when appropriate, more links to data are made

available. There are also several more varieties of page associated with the interactive

space. And, while data is static, there are interactive voting components on each data

page. Overall, the transaction map and the interactive map are different.

Transparency efforts have received the majority of the attention of the Open Government

efforts, but they have also received criticism. Criticism falls in two primary areas.

Firstly, the quality of data has come under scrutiny by both watchdog and government

oversight agencies. The second form of criticism is that the data provided are not

actually used in policy decisions or outcomes. Data quality is something if which the

154

government is aware and tried to address through the collection and now requirement of

agencies to post their data quality standards to agency web sites. The second criticism

that data provision does not contribute to policy decisions or outcomes is an interesting

subject for further research.

Internally, the government has adopted what is becoming known as a social data strategy.

Launched in March 2011, was a social data site to which government agencies have

access through a company called Socrata.25 Through Socrata, agencies can upload new

data sets, ―mash‖ or combine data across agencies, parse data for more individualized

needs, and create a dialogue or wiki around given data sets and mash ups. Socrata also

incorporates social graphs. Social graphs are interactive graphs that can be manipulated

by components. Working off of the same base graph or visual, different users can add or

subtract points of data from a set to create a visualization that is specific to their needs.

Currently the tool is only available to federal employees. In the future, it may open to the

partner agencies and the public. This will add more interactive capabilities to the data

pages and change the architecture map significantly.

Participation

For e-government and i-government, the primary purpose of participation efforts is to

involve the citizenry in the decision making process of government. Efforts at citizen

participation in government through an online format have historically been the most

studied and most contentious area of interest in the digitization of government. Early

25 The internal Data.gov Socrata interface: http://www.socrata.com/datagov/.

155

studies viewed e-democracy, as participation efforts made possible over the Internet are

more commonly known, as a utopian cornucopia of opportunity for citizens to participate

in government. It was hypothesized that the ability to engage with government via an

online format would free citizens of the location and time parameters associated with

public meetings and formal comment processes. It was expected that citizens would turn

out in record numbers to offer opinions and thoughts and debate on issues and policies

facing the government. Government officials worried about the overwhelming input that

could be provided in online formats and the ability of their staff to sort and process the

influx of information. Talks about the opportunity for a more direct democracy ensued

and a world opportunity for new democracy—never materialized—was envisioned.

Debates on e-democracy and citizen participation with government through the Internet

have raged for the last ten years. And, recent research suggests that while there is more

participation, participation as defined by citizens offering input and comments on active

legislation via an online format, that participation has not diversified the portion of the

population that participated prior to the introduction of online formats (Hindman 2008).

And, with the advent of i-government, a major question has been raised as to whether

participation associated with e-democracy is simply carrying out the transactional tasks

of government and citizenship online or whether there is actual citizen participation in

policy making. Since the beginning of the efforts to digitize government, it has been

recognized that methods for including citizens in the policy making process must be

made.

The E-Government Act of 2002 called for the establishment of electronic dockets for

rulemaking (PL107-347 2002, 18). In the act, the primary requirement was that agencies

156

post information and dates related to important rulemaking events for their agency in an

online format. The Office of Management and Budget developed the idea for

regulations.gov. In its nascent form, regulations.gov would act as a portal for regulation

current in the legislative docket for all agencies. Citizens would have the ability to search

for and comment on rules being made as they were in deliberation. Citizen comments

would be submitted to the rule makers and ostensibly considered during debate (OMB

Watch 2002).

In the following diagram (Figure 4.9), an outline of participation expected in the initial

regulations.gov site appears. On the original regulations.gov site, it was expected that

agencies would post data and information about regulations including the agenda for

speakers, the questions presented to speakers, and any other relevant research and

information about the legislation being considered. Citizens could then submit comments

through a comment box provided on the website to the agency involved in the rule

making. The agency would compile the statements submitted and post them back on the

website and to the legislators. Eventually, as the legislative proceedings occurred, a full

history of the legislation would be documented through the web space.

157

Figure 4.9 Regulations.gov Concept Map

(Carlitz and Gunn 2002). Model of online rule-making: http://www.info-

ren.org/publications/giq_2002/giq_2002.html

As can be seen in the diagram, participation is a matter of inputs and outputs that do not

involve circular or web shaped interactions, but one-way transactions. The process is

participatory in that citizens can submit comments, but that comment submission is still

very much a transaction of information. The comment form is more open ended and less

structured that the question forms that a citizen would submit to apply for benefits or

apply for some other service, but it is still the form submission, transaction process. New

technologies allow for real-time document augmentation and revision as well as real-time

discussion and even video conferencing to obtain citizen comments on regulations and

rules being made. The interactive process is more web-like and even circular in nature

when a real-time web based communication technology, like video-conferencing or live-

chatting is present.

158

Regulations.gov was initiated by the 2002 E-Government Act. In its first phase, it was a

transactional web space like that outlined in the diagram. Citizens could enter the

website and choose a series of links that were to basic information about the legislation as

well as dates and times for hearings associated with the legislation. Itineraries and some

testimony were also posted to the site. Citizens could submit comments through an

online comment form. That form was accepted by the government, monitored to ensure

that the content was appropriately oriented toward the legislation and not simply random

or inappropriate commentary, and consolidated into a content summary that was

published to the public record.

With the implementation of new interactive Internet technologies, the regulations.gov site

has expanded to include new forms of citizen participation. As can be observed in the

following picture, in Figure 4.10, of the current regulations.gov web space, citizens are

still able to locate legislation, speakers, itineraries, important dates and rule details.

159

Figure 4.10 Regulations.gov

Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home.

Citizens can also upload documents and research, as well as rank and participate in

forums related to given pieces of legislation. In the last year, approximately 8,000

regulations were proposed by some 300 federal agencies. In response to those proposals,

citizens submitted nearly 150,000 documents in support of or refuting the findings of

legislation26. The documents submitted by agencies comprise only 14% of documents

submitted in support of the regulation. The following chart, in Figure 4.11, depicts the

number of documents submitted by citizens as compared to other sources.

26 Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home.

160

Figure 4.11 Documents Submitted by Citizens to Regulations.gov

Data compiled from regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home

In addition to documents, citizens submitted more than 150,000 comments on proposed

regulations. Recently, regulations.gov implemented a new tool entitled ―Exchange.‖

With the exchange tool, citizens can propose ideas and comments on legislation, as well

as rank and upload supporting documents for regulation formation. Additionally,

agencies can post questions related to potential regulations and citizens can respond to

the questions, comment on responses, and rank responses submitted for the questions. A

depiction of the Exchange page follows in Figure 4.12:

161

Figure 4.12 Regulations.gov Exchange

Regulations.gov Exchange Site: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange//

The second topic proposed for discussion on the regulations.gov site relates to best

practices for electronic dockets. In Figure 4.13, there is an example page of responses for

the question proposed on the Exchange site:

162

Figure 4.13 Regulations.gov Exchange Discussions Interface

Regulations.gov Exchange Discussion Space: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/exchange

On the site, citizens and agency partners can respond to questions, vote on responses to

questions and comment on their own responses and the responses of others. They can

also connect to related topics and to basic information about the topic. When and if the

topic goes into a possible regulation, citizens can also comment on any resultant

regulatory change. In Figure 4.14 is a map of the architecture behind the regulations.gov

exchange site:

163

Figure 4.14 Regulations.gov Architecture Map

Reponses to the question are broken out by category in the web space. Categories relate

to top ideas submitted, as ranked by citizen, or ideas on which agencies would like to

collect specific responses. Each category of responses is represented by a green dot on

the architecture map. Behind the green dots can be thousands of comments and rankings

of comments, submitted by citizens. The blue dots represent links to information and

links to other exchange areas that are related to the topic being discussed in the given web

space. While the documents submitted by citizens through the exchange space are

analyzed for inclusion with the regulation, none of the comments or ideas on the pages

164

are official. An agency can choose to include or adopt ideas and comments at will.

However, citizens can also submit formal comments through the exchange web space.

The yellow dots represent official comment forms.

As with the interactive transparency site, the interactive participation site differs

significantly from the transactional space. No red dots representing tables appear in the

participation space. Additionally, as with the interactive transparency space, the

interactive participation space is larger and more connected than the transaction space.

However, the variation of page type for the participation space is not as great as with the

transparency space. While varied components are present, they are not present in as large

a number as the transparency space. This lack of variation is largely due to the singular

focus on comment and idea generation, rather than a more multifunctional space that

offers data, interaction, and galleries of products.

One of the categories of participation activities involves concerned citizens more directly

in the policy making process. These projects are typically time limited and built around

an agenda or event where citizens, agencies, and agency partners convene to discuss and

address a problem or issue. In both i-government and e-government, these types of small

concentrated efforts focused on policy making are the least used and seemingly most

difficult to administer. It seems that these policy making activities are often more

effective and more appropriate in a physical format where the government interacts

directly with the citizens involved. However, there are examples of successful

participation events that are accomplished using new interactive Internet tools.

165

Global Pulse

An example of an Open Government agency flagship event that deals with policy making

and participation is the United States Agency for International Development event Global

Pulse. Global Pulse was a project that occurred over a three day period with a variety of

constituents. The purpose of the event was to engage multiple audiences in identifying

the largest problems for development. Participants were tasked with identifying the

worst challenges and assigned the responsibility of helping to build plans to address

development problems and allocate resources of partner agencies. Global Pulse recorded

that 10,127 participants representing 172 countries and territories registered for the event.

Fifty-seven percent of the registrants were from outside of the U.S.; 47 percent were

under 35; 51 percent were female and 49 were percent male (USAID 2010).

Participants registered for the event using an online form. Once registered, participants

were assigned to one of ten content areas. These content areas were identified through

interviews with development experts from around the world prior to the event. Within

the web front were icons that lead participants to discussion space associated with each

content area where multiple participants could discuss the topic at hand. In addition to

the forums were webcasts or chats where educational broadcasts and guest speakers could

present information pertinent to discussion. The web space acted as a neutral space for

multiple parties from around the world to convene and discuss problems and solutions to

problems facing the developing world. A graphic of the Global Pulse interface follows:

166

Figure 4.15 Global Pulse

United States Agency for International Development Global Pulse:

http://www.globalpulse2010.gov/partners.html. It should be noted that the graphic included was captured

one year after the event. When the interactive space was live, icons to enter discussion forums appeared for

people to discuss ideas.

The space was connected to twitter and Facebook social media tools. So, participants

could talk to their contacts and communicate back to the forum any information garnered

through the social networking tools. Additionally, a twitter feed of the event was posted

as the events happened from the event organizers and an event Facebook page was set up

so that whoever visited and ―liked‖ the Global Pulse page could follow the events. On

the web space, participants submitted comments and discussion points into online

forums. A stream for comment and idea submission was open for the full 72 hours of the

event. As Figure 4.16 below shows, nearly 10,000 comments were collected around the

ten content areas. Empowering women and girls and inspiring a new generation were the

167

two topics seen as most in need of addressing in the developing world. Second were

education and job and business skills.

Figure 4.16 Global Pulse Discussion Outcomes

(USAID 2010). Number of comments submitted related to top issues facing development.

For each content area, solutions to the issues or problems were formulated. As the

solutions were formulated, key insights about the problem, along with the solutions or

ideas for solutions were posted to participants. Participants were encouraged to work

with local partner agencies and the other participants of the project to implement the

solutions. Equally, as part of the project, local hosts for outcome related activities were

identified. Participants could also connect with these partner agencies to volunteer for

and work with the organizations that stepped forward as partners in the process.

Global Pulse 2010 received support from a large number of organizational partners

including Action Aid, Aga Khan Foundation, American University Kogod School of

168

Business , Babson College, Business Fights Poverty, CSR Wire, Devex, DAI,

Georgetown University, IBM's Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Affairs,

InterAction, International Center for Research on Women, International Republic

Institute, Link TV, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, National

Endowment for Democracy, One Economy, TED.com, and Women Thrive Worldwide

(USAID 2010). They also had a large circle of governmental partnerships including the

Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and

State.

The architecture map of the Global Pulse event was derived a year after the space was

actively used for Global Pulse. However, some key observations are possible. Figure

4.17 houses the Global Pulse architecture map:

169

Figure 4.17 Global Pulse Architecture Map

Like the previous interactive spaces, the Global Pulse interactive participation space

differs from the benefits application transactional space. The interactive space is more

varied than the transactional space and is separated by sections that would have housed

the conversations had the space been live when mapped. The green dots on the space

would have opened into discussion forums and the blue dots representing links are links

to partner agencies. Some of the violet dots represent graphic stills of videos used in the

event. The orange dots represent content relevant to discussion that was provided to

participants. All portions of the event were documented. On the site now, are the

170

outcomes of the event. Participants can check in and note progress with their partner

agency.

A collaborative project that is just beginning that has the potential to increase

participation in government is ExpertNet. ExpertNet highlights both the problems with

the current participation efforts and the successes of current participation efforts.

ExpertNet was explored in December of 2010 and January 2011. ExpertNet is a wiki

designed for agencies to pose questions related to policy issues or pressing concerns of

the agency. For example, an agency may pose a question about the importance of small

business in economic growth and development. Experts from academia, government, the

private sector, and the citizenry have the opportunity to provide high level research,

practical cases and experiences, and ideas about the role of small businesses in economic

growth and development. These research and these ideas and experiences are discussed,

added to, and edited until a set of information, data, and practical knowledge is

accumulated around the issue or problem. Then that information is used to develop and

support policy solutions. ExperNet is in the pilot stages and it is not yet known if it will

be implemented across the federal government.

However, in concept, ExpertNet embodies the spirit of democratic participation and the

crowdsourcing possibilities associated with new interactive Internet technologies. It also

offers a unique participatory architecture. Along with the wiki is an application

programming interface (API). Through the programming interface, users can connect the

wiki to sites other than the original host—typically the government agency seeking the

solution or assistance with a question or problem. Thus, if a university or non-profit

organization, corporation, or user group wished to connect the wiki to their organization

171

directly, they simply have to drop the interface into their webpage. By dropping the

interface into their website, they create a direct link to the site, expanding the reach of the

site and connecting their site into an architecture that supports participation.

It is expected that as more interactive technologies are incorporated into websites that

differing architectures will emerge. Certainly the two architectures presented herein

differ from one another. Those differences derive both from the functionalities built into

the web spaces and the method of participation. The regulations.gov site is primarily a

communications channel that is continuous and which has a history of evolution from a

transactional site to an interactive site. The Global Pulse site was a temporal event that

involved a constant, high rate of activity for a brief period of time. Both involve

conversations, but the Global Pulse project also incorporated video and text applications.

The upcoming technologies with application interfaces and large scale wiki activities

offer even more potentials for new participatory architectures.

Collaboration

The concept of collaboration as Obama introduced it in the Open Government directive,

relates to the idea that citizens use their personal skills and education to assist

government in its everyday operations. It also incorporates the idea that agencies develop

internal mechanisms for collaboration to achieve projects in a more effective, more

efficient manner while having access to the best and brightest ideas within agencies and

across agencies. Collaboration, as included in the directive has both democratic value

and business value. Collaboration is both an opportunity for citizens to volunteer their

172

expertise and an opportunity for government to benefit from the service of citizens. And

an opportunity for government to develop the human and social capital of agencies by

taking advantage of the opportunity to collaborate as afforded by new interactive Internet

tools. Volunteerism is a tradition sacred to democracy. And collaboration is a revered

trademark of the opportunities provided by new interactive Internet technologies.

Collaboration, as contextualized in the Open Government directive, has not previously

appeared in e-government efforts. It is a concept almost exclusively related to i-

government and the business values associated with new interactive Internet

technologies. It is also the primary focus of innovation efforts associated with new

information technology implementation and development in government.

Internally, two examples of internal collaboration mechanisms included Intellipedia and

Diplopedia. Both Intellipedia and Diplopedia are wikis. The purpose of the wikis is to

give space to multiple partners and multiple agencies to discuss, expand, and clarity

information that is discovered by individual employees of partner agencies. The goal of

the wikis is to provide a space to consolidate and communicate essential information that

crosses traditional agency boundaries. Wikis are also used in public and government

collaboration spaces.

Externally, Peer to Patent27 exemplifies public-private-citizen collaboration through a

wiki space. Peer to Patent, which is written about extensively in Beth Noveck‘s book

Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger,

27 Peer to Patent web space: http://www.peertopatent.org/.

173

and Citizens More Powerful, is a project of the United States Patent and Trademark

Office. It began as a partnership between the Patent and Trademark Office and New

York Law School's Center for Patent Innovations. The objective of the project is to assist

the Patent and Trademark Office in identifying information that is useful in assessing

patents that are pending with the Office. The idea is that citizens working in the field in

which the patents are relevant may have access to information and ―prior art‖ or existing

projects that are closely associated with, related to, or possibly the same as a project with

an active patent application.

A process map for Peer-to-Patent appears in Figure 4.18:

Figure 4.18 Peer-to-Patent Process Map

Peer-to-Patent: http://www.peertopatent.org/

174

Through a collaborative project space, patent applicants voluntarily submit projects to the

Patent and Trade Office Peer-to-Patent project. Notification that a patent has been

submitted is sent to potential citizen reviewers. For the most part, these reviewers are

experts in the field who have been identified by the Peer-to-Patent team, or who have

heard about the Peer-to-Patent project and volunteered to be a reviewer. Primarily, they

are scientists and technologists who wish to participate in the patent process. The

reviewers have a certain amount of time to invite fellow reviewers, review and comment

upon the patent application, and to submit information and images to fellow reviewers

and to the government for consideration. Reviewers can post comments, research, and

any images or ―prior art‖ for others to view within the collaborative space. Ultimately,

after discussion and review, the research and information and a summary discussion are

given to the government for decision. Patents that are applied for through the Peer-to-

Patent project are eligible for a 20-year monopoly patent on a product if approved (Allen

et al. 2008).

175

Figure 4.19 Peer-to-Patent Patent Application Wiki Interface

Peer-to-Patent: http://www.peertopatent.org/

The motivation in developing Peer-to-Patent was a recognition that the patent system was

beleaguered by too many patent applications. The government could not keep up with

the number of applications submitted, nearly half a million applications backlogged for a

given year (Noveck 2005). By inviting citizens and fellow scientists and technologists

into the patent process, the time to process patent applications has significantly decreased

(Allen et al. 2008). In the first year of the pilot, nearly 300 patents were reviewed (Allen

et al. 2008). According to their website, Peer-to-Patent is on target for evaluating 1000

176

patents in 2011. The Peer-to-Patent project is funded by partner agencies Article One

Partners, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Open Innovation Network,

and Red Hat (Allen et al. 2008). Australia, Japan, Korea, and the United Kingdom have

all adopted models similar to Peer-to-Patent to process their patent applications.

Figure 4.19 Peer-to-Patent Input Interface

Peer-to-Patent Input: http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20110035451/activity

Peer-to-Patent was one of the first citizen-private-public collaboration efforts adopted by

the federal government. While several of the attributes of the project are unique to Peer-

to-Patent, the conceptual model has guided the development of collaboration efforts for

the federal government. Collaboration projects are centered around leveraging the

177

expertise of citizens and applying that expertise to address or solve an issue faced by

government or to assist in achieving an agency mission. The technology involved allows

for wiki-like conversations or contributions to an interactive Internet space, along with

posting of documents, pictures, sometimes video, and other links. Several projects also

involve industry partners to support the development of the project technology and to

assist in funding the project.

The architectural map for the Peer-to-Patent project is located in Figure 4.20:

Figure 4.20 Peer-to-Patent Architecture Map

178

As the previous interactive Internet spaces, the interactive collaboration space differs

from that of the transactional space. No tables exist in the collaborative space. Each

green dot represents a break off for a project associated with Peer-to-Patent where

discussions are held and where research and prior art is submitted for review by peers of

the project. In each break is a page of activity associated with individual patents. The

blue dots represent external links to information, contacts, research, and discussion off of

the main page for the patent review page. The space is a continuum of interaction among

peers and development of knowledge around patents pending.

TRANSACTIONAL VERSUS INTERACTIVE WEB SPACE

All of the architectural maps of the interactive technologies differ from the architectural

maps of the transactional technology. These differences occur primarily due to new

methods of participation and new methods of data acquisition and use. Users of

interactive technology have more power to contribute to and extend the network and the

architectures of government and the technologies of government that were not offered in

the transactional world. Those new opportunities lie in more ways to discuss, debate,

develop ideas, explore and manage data, and to incorporate individual expertise into

government.

For each of the efforts, transparency, participation, collaboration, multiple partners and

developers are involved in evolving the site and the content of the web space. This

participation and these partnerships exist in a different way than they exist in the

transactional space. In the transnational web space, agencies might share technologies.

179

When agencies share technologies in the federal government, they typically adopt similar

software. For example, one agency might choose to use Microsoft Word for their word

processing software, another agency could make that choice as well and the technology

would then be a shared technology. There is no interaction among agencies or with

industry or citizen partners past the point of original software implementation. However,

with interactive tools, while the base software may be the same, typically multiple uses of

the software also exist. This ability to use software in multiple ways to involve more

than one participant at a time allows for more partnerships and development of

information exchange and knowledge generation practices.

New relationships with data are also present with interactive technologies. In the

transactional space, for data that is not classified or personal data, it is possible to share

data across agencies by providing login or other access from one agency to the next

agency. But, it is not possible to access general data about an organization or to compare

data from multiple organizations in one space, as is possible in places like data.gov and

FOIA.gov. In interactive space, data exchange is effortless and expanding as

functionalities like social data strategies are implemented into interactive spaces. New

partnerships and new ways to exchange data should knock down some of the silos

thought to be present in command and control systems, like the government and like

those still associated with transactional e-government. While the effects cannot yet fully

be known, early indicators of new agency partnerships, like the seven government

agencies that were part of the Global Pulse initiative, and new industry partnerships, like

those inspired by Challenge.gov and Peer-to Patent, are appearing.

180

There are drawbacks to interactive technologies. While they offer new ways to convene

and manifest in new architectures, the can also suffer the problem of small worlds and

weak links. It could be that the participants in new interactive technologies are the same

participants that are active in the physical world or that interactive technologies have

simply allowed for ease of communication among existing groups. Accessibility for

disabled and economically or technologically disadvantaged, including the elderly—a

high benefits, high votes, low tech population. Buchanan also notes that as links are

made across agencies and partners, a collapsing nodes situation might arise.

Architecturally, when the links underneath a web space become very complex, a

collapsing structure begins to emerge where the coding architect, to conserve web space

and to not develop dangling links will cull the code to cut back the links to a manageable

structure. Users will engage in the same behaviors because they can only manage so

many sources of information. They will naturally begin to use a set of known links and

rely solely on those links. Additionally, if the links are not culled, it can lead to dangling

links that are unused or disabled. When users encounter links to nowhere or inaccurate

links, they lose trust in the web space as it is perceived to be unmaintained.

The same idea of collapsing and dangling links exists in users of the information systems.

Users will naturally congregate around one idea or another. They will also tend to

congregate around a group of leaders or thought processes that they can understand or

with which they agree. This congress around people or ideas creates exclusionary

patterns in participation behaviors or small worlds or small communities of expertise and

practice. The promotion or practice of an exclusive group of experts or an exclusive

thought circle can turn people away and erode trust in the organization. The processes or

181

collaborative democracy and interactive web space must be carefully maintained to

provide opportunities for action and inclusion.

In the vein of Steven Johnson‘s thoughts on emergence, with the implementation of

interactive Internet tools, the government becomes the food source around which slime

mold coalesces, the colony of the ants. It becomes a convening source for communities

that are somewhat self-organized, but it is also tasked with actively growing and

promoting those communities to increase access and participation by providing the

architectural platform and trusted data and information. It is the organizational cross

between the starfish and the spider.

182

SUPPLIMENTAL 4.1 CODE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE MAPPING TOOL

Here's the sourcecode for this applet.

Made by Marcel Salathe

www.aharef.info site

Credits: Processing, Traer Physics, HTMLParser.

Important: This code can only be used in Processing

import traer.physics.*;

import traer.animation.*;

import java.util.Iterator;

import java.util.ArrayList;

import java.util.HashMap;

import processing.net.*;

import org.htmlparser.*;

import org.htmlparser.util.*;

import org.htmlparser.filters.*;

import org.htmlparser.nodes.*;

int totalNumberOfNodes = 0;

ArrayList elements = new ArrayList();

ArrayList parents = new ArrayList();

int nodesAdded = 0;

int maxDegree = 0;

HashMap particleNodeLookup = new HashMap();

HashMap particleInfoLookup = new HashMap();

ParticleSystem physics;

Smoother3D centroid;

private String urlPath =

"http://www.aharef.info/static/htmlgraph/getDataFromURL.php?URL=";

private String content;

float NODE_SIZE = 30;

float EDGE_LENGTH = 50;

float EDGE_STRENGTH = 0.2;

float SPACER_STRENGTH = 2000;

183

final String GRAY = "155,155,155";

final String BLUE = "0,0,155";

final String ORANGE = "255,155,51";

final String YELLOW = "255,255,51";

final String RED = "255,0,0";

final String GREEN = "0,155,0";

final String VIOLET = "204,0,255";

final String BLACK = "0,0,0";

void setup() {

size(750, 750);

String urlFromForm = param("urlFromForm");

urlPath += urlFromForm;

smooth();

framerate(24);

strokeWeight(2);

ellipseMode(CENTER);

physics = new ParticleSystem( 0, 0.25 );

centroid = new Smoother3D( 0.0, 0.0, 1.0,0.8 );

initialize();

this.getDataFromClient();

}

void getDataFromClient() {

try {

org.htmlparser.Parser ps = new org.htmlparser.Parser ();

ps.setURL(urlPath);

OrFilter orf = new OrFilter();

NodeFilter[] nfls = new NodeFilter[1];

nfls[0] = new TagNameFilter("html");

orf.setPredicates(nfls);

NodeList nList = ps.parse(orf);

Node node = nList.elementAt (0);

this.parseTree(node);

EDGE_STRENGTH = (1.0 / maxDegree) * 5;

if (EDGE_STRENGTH > 0.2) EDGE_STRENGTH = 0.2;

}

catch (Exception e) {

e.printStackTrace();

}

}

void initialize() {

184

physics.clear();

}

void parseTree(Node node) {

int degree = 0;

if (node == null) return;

String nodeText = node.getText();

if (node instanceof TagNode && !((TagNode)node).isEndTag()) {

//println(((TagNode)node).getTagName());

totalNumberOfNodes++;

elements.add(node);

parents.add(((TagNode)node).getParent());

}

NodeList children = node.getChildren();

if (children == null) return;

SimpleNodeIterator iter = children.elements();

while(iter.hasMoreNodes()) {

Node child = iter.nextNode();

if (child instanceof TagNode && !((TagNode)child).isEndTag()) degree++;

parseTree(child);

}

if (degree > maxDegree) maxDegree = degree;

}

Particle addNode(Particle q) {

Particle p = physics.makeParticle();

if (q == null) return p;

addSpacersToNode( p, q );

makeEdgeBetween( p, q );

float randomX = (float)((Math.random() * 0.5) + 0.5);

if (Math.random() < 0.5) randomX *= -1;

float randomY = (float)((Math.random() * 0.5) + 0.5);

if (Math.random() < 0.5) randomY *= -1;

p.moveTo( q.position().x() +randomX, q.position().y() + randomY, 0 );

return p;

}

void draw() {

//uncomment this if you want your network saved as pdfs

//beginRecord(PDF, "frameimage-####.pdf");

if (nodesAdded < totalNumberOfNodes) {

185

this.addNodesToGraph();

}

else {

if (EDGE_STRENGTH < 0.05) EDGE_STRENGTH += 0.0001;

}

physics.tick( 1.0 );

if (physics.numberOfParticles() > 1) {

updateCentroid();

}

centroid.tick();

background(255);

translate(width/2, height/2);

scale(centroid.z());

translate( -centroid.x(), -centroid.y() );

drawNetwork();

//uncomment this if you want your network saved as pdfs

//endRecord();

}

void addNodesToGraph() {

Particle newParticle;

TagNode tagNodeToAdd = (TagNode)elements.get(nodesAdded);

Node parentNode = (Node)parents.get(nodesAdded);

if (parentNode == null) {

// this is the html element

newParticle = addNode(null);

}

else {

Particle parentParticle = (Particle)particleNodeLookup.get(parentNode);

newParticle = addNode(parentParticle);

}

particleNodeLookup.put(tagNodeToAdd,newParticle);

String nodeColor = GRAY;

if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("a")) nodeColor = BLUE;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("div")) nodeColor = GREEN;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("html")) nodeColor =

BLACK;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("tr")) nodeColor = RED;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("td")) nodeColor = RED;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("table")) nodeColor = RED;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("br")) nodeColor =

ORANGE;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("p")) nodeColor = ORANGE;

186

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("blockquote")) nodeColor =

ORANGE;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("img")) nodeColor =

VIOLET;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("form")) nodeColor =

YELLOW;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("input")) nodeColor =

YELLOW;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("textarea")) nodeColor =

YELLOW;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("select")) nodeColor =

YELLOW;

else if (tagNodeToAdd.getTagName().equalsIgnoreCase("option")) nodeColor =

YELLOW;

particleInfoLookup.put(newParticle,nodeColor);

nodesAdded++;

//println(nodesAdded + " of " + totalNumberOfNodes + " (" +

tagNodeToAdd.getTagName() + ")");

}

void drawNetwork() {

// draw edges

stroke( 0 );

beginShape( LINES );

for ( int i = 0; i < physics.numberOfSprings(); ++i ){

Spring e = physics.getSpring( i );

Particle a = e.getOneEnd();

Particle b = e.getTheOtherEnd();

vertex( a.position().x(), a.position().y() );

vertex( b.position().x(), b.position().y() );

}

endShape();

// draw vertices

noStroke();

for ( int i = 0; i < physics.numberOfParticles(); ++i ) {

Particle v = physics.getParticle(i);

String info = (String)(particleInfoLookup.get(v));

if (info != null) {

String[] infos = info.split(",");

fill(Integer.parseInt(infos[0]),Integer.parseInt(infos[1]),Integer.parseInt(infos[2]));

}

else {

fill(155);

187

}

ellipse( v.position().x(), v.position().y(), NODE_SIZE, NODE_SIZE );

}

}

void updateCentroid() {

float

xMax = Float.NEGATIVE_INFINITY,

xMin = Float.POSITIVE_INFINITY,

yMin = Float.POSITIVE_INFINITY,

yMax = Float.NEGATIVE_INFINITY;

for (int i = 0; i < physics.numberOfParticles(); ++i) {

Particle p = physics.getParticle(i);

xMax = max(xMax, p.position().x());

xMin = min(xMin, p.position().x());

yMin = min(yMin, p.position().y());

yMax = max(yMax, p.position().y());

}

float deltaX = xMax-xMin;

float deltaY = yMax-yMin;

if ( deltaY > deltaX ) {

centroid.setTarget(xMin + 0.5*deltaX, yMin + 0.5*deltaY, height/(deltaY+50));

}

else {

centroid.setTarget(xMin + 0.5*deltaX, yMin + 0.5*deltaY, width/(deltaX+50));

}

}

void addSpacersToNode( Particle p, Particle r ) {

for ( int i = 0; i < physics.numberOfParticles(); ++i ) {

Particle q = physics.getParticle(i);

if (p != q && p != r) {

physics.makeAttraction(p, q, -SPACER_STRENGTH, 20);

}

}

}

void makeEdgeBetween(Particle a, Particle b) {

physics.makeSpring( a, b, EDGE_STRENGTH, EDGE_STRENGTH,

EDGE_LENGTH );

}

188

SUPPLIMENTAL 4.2 DATA.GOV DATA CONTRIBUTIONS BY AGENCY

Agency Name

Raw

Datasets

High-Value

Raw Datasets Geodata

Department of Agriculture 98 17 1

Department of Commerce 92 80 259,978

Department of Defense 28 26 0

Department of Education 11 3 0

Department of Energy 90 18 0

Department of Health and Human

Services 97 22 0

Department of Homeland Security 54 12 0

Department of Housing and Urban

Development 11 5 0

Department of the Interior 197 13 115,931

Department of Justice 115 45 0

Department of Labor 53 14 0

Department of State 36 31 0

Department of Transportation 3 3 0

Department of the Treasury 91 9 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 103 78 1

Environmental Protection Agency 1,540 1,404 257

General Services Administration 64 26 0

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration 3 3 512

National Science Foundation 41 2 0

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 23 0

Office of Personnel Management 44 30 0

Small Business Administration 3 2 0

Social Security Administration 28 26 0

US Agency for International

Development 4 3 0

Broadcasting Board of Governors 4 3 0

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 3 3 0

Corporation for National and Community

Service 4 4 0

Election Assistance Commission 3 3 0

Export-Import Bank of the US 23 22 0

189

Executive Office of the President 124 11 0

Federal Communications Commission 8 0 0

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 3 3 0

Federal Election Commission 4 0 0

Federal Housing Finance Agency 6 6 0

Federal Reserve Board 4 2 0

Institute of Museum and Library Services 21 3 0

Merit Systems Protection Board 3 3 0

Millennium Challenge Corporation 3 3 0

National Archives and Records

Administration 29 6 0

National Capital Planning Commission 4 4 0

National Endowment for the Arts 1 1 0

National Endowment for the Humanities 6 5 0

National Labor Relations Board 51 1 0

National Transportation Safety Board 14 12 0

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission 3 0 0

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian

Relocation 4 3 0

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 3 3 0

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 3 3 0

Railroad Retirement Board 5 3 0

Securities and Exchange Commission 9 4 0

Selective Service System 9 0 0

Tennessee Valley Authority 46 0 0

US Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission 37 17 0

US International Trade Commission 2 2 0

US Office of the Special Counsel 3 3 0

190

SUPPLIMENTAL 4.3 DATA.GOV DATA TOOL CONTRIBUTIONS BY AGENCY

Agency Name Tools

High-Value

Tools

Department of Agriculture 32 5

Department of Commerce 190 91

Department of Defense 252 61

Department of Education 53 11

Department of Energy 28 5

Department of Health and Human Services 114 24

Department of Homeland Security 3 1

Department of Housing and Urban Development 12 3

Department of the Interior 11 0

Department of Justice 12 5

Department of Labor 9 4

Department of State 9 4

Department of Transportation 48 0

Department of the Treasury 12 2

Department of Veterans Affairs 5 2

Environmental Protection Agency 55 20

General Services Administration 27 17

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 21 5

National Science Foundation 3 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1

Office of Personnel Management 1 0

Small Business Administration 2 1

US Agency for International Development 5 0

Broadcasting Board of Governors 2 0

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 1 1

Executive Office of the President 9 0

Federal Communications Commission 3 0

Federal Reserve Board 1 1

National Archives and Records Administration 1 0

National Capital Planning Commission 1 1

National Transportation Safety Board 8 0

Securities and Exchange Commission 12 3

US Consumer Product Safety Commission 6 0

US International Trade Commission 1 1

191

Chapter 5: Ideas that Scale?? The Value of Interactive Internet

Technologies

INTRODUCTION

As findings in previous chapters indicate, federal agencies have endeavored to make

legal, organizational, and architectural changes necessary to support the adoption of new

interactive technologies. Questions explored in chapter five relate to determining the

value of investment in those interactive technologies. Value is not a concept on which

agencies agree and which is not prescribed by the Open Government Directive. But it is

essential in justifying the demand for implementation and in accounting for the financial

investment in new technologies. This chapter contains three approaches to understanding

the value of interactive Internet tools. The first approach includes viewing the quality of

the information commodity as determined by users as a method for understanding value.

The second approach involves a quantitative assessment of the relationship between the

change in customer service satisfaction score and the use of an interactive Internet tool

that focused on participation. Lastly, measures and concepts of value that exist in Open

Government plans are explored. Ultimately, recommendations for the development of

interactive Internet tools are made that will hopefully guide the construction of value

metrics for tools and systems incorporated into government agencies.

OVERVIEW

As introduced in chapter two, Eppler discusses the importance of quality of information

presented on government websites (Eppler 2007). He argues that information quality is

192

paramount to ensure usability and trust in government websites. He claims that if citizens

find do not find government websites useful, clear, and informative, they will not use the

websites and they will lose trust in the government. He determines that this breaking of

trust will increases costs for both government and citizens. He suggests that agencies

employ metrics to assess the quality of information that exists within a web space so that

agencies can monitor usefulness and quality of the information they provide. As part of

e-government efforts, agencies developed a customer service survey that is administered

on the agency website as users move through the pages of the web space. However,

while questions on the survey relate to the usability of sites, they do not relate to

information quality. As part of the i-government infrastructure, feedback mechanisms for

information quality have been implanted on sites like Data.gov. For certain interactive

tools, citizens can rank the quality of the information by information or data set within a

given agency or dashboard web space by using a five-star system. Explored in this

chapter is the use of data ranking systems as applied on Data.gov as a measure of value

for new interactive Internet tools.

Also explored is the value of interactive tools that promote participation. The Open

Government Directive established by the Obama Administration in January 2009,

ordered agencies to develop innovative methods to promote transparency, collaboration,

and participation with citizens. Many of the efforts agencies made toward achieving the

mandates of the directive involved incorporating interactive Internet technologies into

agency websites. Twenty-three federal agencies adopted a specific citizen and employee

ideation tool developed by IdeaScale. Through the IdeaScale tool, citizens and

employees of agencies were able to submit ideas and comments on ideas submitted, as

well as vote up or down ideas and comments submitted regarding agency plans for

193

implementing the Open Government Directive through individual agency Open

Government websites. The ideation tool was used for a six week period to garner citizen

and employee ideas, comments, and votes related to Open Government and the Open

Government plans put forth by agencies.

Questioned within this chapter is the value of the implementation of the IdeaScale tool as

a component of the incorporation of interactive Internet tools into governance. Findings

sought relate both to value to customers, citizens, and value to agencies. Analyzed within

this chapter is the relationship between customer service specific to government and

federal agency websites in particular and the implementation of the IdeaScale tool. The

estimation of customer service is derived from the assessment completed for the

American Customer Satisfaction Index compiled by ForeSee Results (ACSI 2010). Data

includes customer service scores for years 2009 and 2010 for all agencies evaluated by

ForeSee that both did and did not use the IdeaScale tool. Employed in analysis is a

differencing model to relate the difference in customer service score from 2009 to 2010

to the use of the IdeaScale tool for those using the tool and those not using the interactive

tool. Additionally noted is the inclusion or implementation of the ideas generated using

the IdeaScale tool in the execution of the Open Government plans in the first year

following the Open Government Directive. Findings from the quantitative model suggest

that the ability to participate and collaborate via an online tool like the IdeaScale tool

adds value to governance efforts and specifically to engaging with government through

interactive Internet tools.

Also included in the chapter is a brief qualitative analysis of the measurement and

valuation mechanisms developed by agencies in their Open Government plan. While no

194

systematic effort was suggested in the directive for agencies to use in evaluating

interactive Internet tools, the directive did stipulate that agencies develop measurement

metrics for their Flagship initiatives. Equally, of their own accord, some agencies

included a discussion of the value of open government in terms of the information tools

they plan to employ in their Open Government efforts. An overview of these discussions

is included to shed some light on how agencies begin the measurement and value

conversation. Drawn from analysis are conclusions that relate to agency incorporation of

interactive Internet tools into agency websites to promote transparency, participation, and

collaboration.

THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION

Eppler suggests that the value of information systems and interactive tools is in the

quality of the information provided within those systems and through those tools (Eppler

2007). There are several mechanisms for understanding the value of information, but the

one chosen by the Obama administration for the Open Government directive was that of a

ranking system for data, information, and products of ideation processes. To understand

the use of ranking systems and the communication of any value that the use of those

ranking systems might suggest, an assessment of a ranking tool that was applied to the

data of all federal agencies as they submitted the data sets required in the directive to

data.gov was executed. Ranking data for all high-value data sets was extracted from

data.gov and analyzed for patterns in citizen assessment of data quality.

195

When the Open Government Directive was introduced, Obama tasked each agency with

submitting three new, previously unpublished ―high value‖ data sets to Data.gov.

Publishing of high-value data served two primary purposes; 1) to provide a measure of

government accountability to citizens, and 2) to provide trusted data sets to support the

decision and innovation purposes of citizens. Focus was placed, not only on the provision

of data, but the provision of tools with which to use the data—visualize, build

comparative data sets, post to different web spaces, etc. And, measures were taken to

include an interactive component for citizen request for data sets, citizen submission of

data sets, and citizen development of data tools.

In the implementing documentation, a high value data set was defined as follows: ―High-

value information is information that can be used to increase agency accountability and

responsiveness; improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations; further the

core mission of the agency; create economic opportunity; or respond to need and demand

as identified through public consultation (Orszag 2009).‖ Each agency was required to

describe how they had identified the data sets submitted as being high-value and post this

description to their website along with links to the data in the data.gov portal. In addition

to the directive to produce three new, high-value data sets on data.gov, Obama also called

for the incorporation of ranking systems into data.gov so that the public could rank the

quality and usability of the data.

This coupling of a ranking system for data and the ability of citizens to comment on and

suggest data sets for inclusion in data.gov were efforts to gain public trust in the data and

provide a mechanism for feedback and participation in the development of the data.gov

portal. Agencies, overwhelmingly, responded to the call for data set inclusion in

196

data.gov. Most agencies were able to immediately identify and post at least one high

value data set and the full three came shortly after the first. Only the Central Intelligence

Agency and some of the smaller agencies with limited or sensitive data were slower to

respond to the call for data. In part, the provision of data was an easier task than others

called for in the directive. But, it is a part that agencies took seriously and around which

agencies constructed a value conversation.

Agency data sets were ranked by citizens using a five-star ranking system where five

stars indicates a data set of high quality and a one star rank indicates a data set of low

quality. In addition to a given rank, citizens can also vote for the ranking. So, an agency

data set can get a five star ranking that is supported by a certain number of votes. This

voting in support of a given ranking for a data set indicates agreement with a ranking. A

data set can also be voted down. When rankings and votes are tabulated, an average

ranking is submitted for the data set.

Every agency submitted at least three high quality data sets to data.gov and at least one

data set from each agency was evaluated by the public. The total number of data sets

ranked was 509 out of 3,216, or 16 percent of all data sets, that agencies submitted as

high-value data sets. The average number of high-value data sets submitted by agency

was 64 data sets. On average, citizens ranked ten data sets per agency. For the most part,

agencies perform well when evaluated by citizens. In Figure 5.1, there is a chart of the

percentage of data sets ranked by ranking of citizens.

197

Figure 5.1 Percentage of Ranked Data.gov Data

Source: Author‘s calculations derived from data described in Supplimental 5.6

As Figure 5.1 shows, if a data set was ranked, it tended to be ranked on the higher end of

the scale. Six percent of the ranked data sets received five star rankings, four percent

received four star rankings, three percent received three star rankings, two percent

received two star rankings, and one percent received one star rankings. Eighty-four

percent of the data was unranked. However, it should be noted that data.gov is a

relatively new project and that it is expected that as people discover and use it, a higher

percentage of rankings of data sets will occur for the data—especially as agencies see

value in the feedback citizens provide.

198

As an example of the agency response, in their Open Government Plan, the Department

of Homeland Security Chief Information Officer Richard Spires recognizes the dual

value of public input in the data provision process, ―By asking the public what

information would be useful, we‘re able to prioritize the posting of datasets to maximize

public value (DHS 2010).‖ The first three high-value data sets published by the

Department of Homeland Security all dealt with the Federal Emergency Management

Administration, specifically to disaster and hazards mitigation and to the funding of

emergency services. The disaster and hazards mitigation data sets each received five star

rankings for the sets. The Department uploaded a total of 54 data sets into data.gov. The

average ranking for these data sets is 3.8 stars out of five, which was on par with the

average for all data sets.

The accumulated rankings by citizens of selected data sets submitted by all agencies to

data.gov are depicted in Figure 5.2.

199

Figure 5.2 Data.gov Accumulated Citizen Rankings of Agency Data

Source: Author‘s calculations derived from data described in Supplimental 5.6

Of the, 509 data sets that were ranked, 196 received five-star rankings, and 120 received

four-star rankings. Of the 196 data sets that received five-star rankings, those data sets

also received 2,296 votes in favor of that ranking. Of the 120 data sets that received four

star rankings, those data sets also received 603 votes in favor of those rankings. In the

following table is the total number of data sets that received a given star ranking. Also

included is the number of votes for that ranking.

200

Table 5.1 Data.gov Data Rankings

Five Stars Four

Stars

Three

Stars

Two

Stars

One

Star

Number of Rankings 196 120 90 52 51

Number of Votes for

Ranking

2,296 603 368 634 91

The average ranking of data sets that were ranked was 3.6 out of five stars. The weighted

average of agencies was 3.7 out of five stars. The data set that was ranked most often

was ―The 2008 Combined Federal Campaign Detailed Results by Local Campaigns‖ data

set, which is published by the Office of Personnel Management. The data set contains

information on donor contributions through the 2008 Combined Federal Campaign by

local campaign. Data includes information on the number of donors, campaign costs,

payroll deduction contributions, and recipient organizations. The data set received a five

star-rankings and a total of 1,460 votes in support of that five-star rankings. Overall, the

Office of Personnel Management is the highest ranked agency for data submission. A

total of 29 of 44 data sets submitted by the Office of Personnel management received five

star rankings.

The Environmental Protection Agency ranks as the second highest ranked agency overall

with 22 of the 47 data sets submitted receiving five star votes on their data and those 22

five-star rankings received 90 votes. Most of the ranked data sets relate to the release of

toxins and to environmental quality. Following the Environmental Protection Agency is

the Department of Interior. Nineteen of the data sets submitted by the Department of the

201

Interior received five-star rankings and those five star rankings received 48 votes. The

Department of Interior houses a large amount of geo data, among other data sets.

The Department of Health and Human Services received the most one-star votes on their

data sets. Six of the 97 data sets submitted were ranked as one-star quality with a total of

18 votes for those star rankings. Second to the Department of Health and Human

Services was the Executive Office of the President. Six of the data sets published by the

White House received one-star rankings with a total of 8 votes for those one-star

rankings. However, the lowest ranked by portion contributed to the overall ranking of

data sets were the National Endowment for the Arts and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The National Endowment for the arts submitted one data set to data.gov and that one data

set was ranked with a one star ranking. The Tennessee Valley Authority submitted two

data sets to data.gov and both were given one star rankings.

The Department of Defense and the National Archives and Records Administration have

the most variation of rankings and data submitted. In the following table are the percent

share of rankings by ranking for the Department of Defense and the National Archives

and Records Administration:

Table 5.2 Percent of Ranking Share by Rank

Five

Star

Four

Star

Three

Star

Two

Star

One

Star

Total

Ranked

Department of

Defense

0.21 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.50

National Archives and

Records

Administration

0.28 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.55

202

The Department of Defense uploaded 28 data sets to data.gov. Of those 28 data sets, 50

percent of data was ranked. Twenty-one percent of data received five star rankings while

11 percent received three star and 11 percent received one star, and four percent received

four star and four percent received two star rankings. The average ranking for the

Department of Defense was 3.43 stars for all sets submitted that were ranked. The

National Archives and Records is similarly varied in ranking. They submitted 29 data

sets to data.gov. Twenty-eight percent of those data sets were ranked with five stars,

seven percent received four stars and seven percent received three star rankings. Three

percent of data sets were awarded one star rankings. The overall average for the National

Archives and Records Administration was 4.2 out of five stars. While there is no

correlation between ranking and number of data sets submitted, these two agencies had

higher levels of variation in ranking of data than most agencies.

Seven of the fifty different organizations submitting data to data.gov received rankings

for all data sets submitted by the agencies. Those seven agencies include the Department

of Transportation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, the Small Business Administration, and the United States

International Trade Commission. Each of these seven agencies submitted an average of

three data sets. On average, citizens gave the data sets produced by the agencies a 3.78

star ranking. A list of all rankings and the relative weight of the rankings in the average

ranking by agency appears in Supplimental 5.1.

203

While agencies receive rankings and those rankings indicate that most data sets fair well

when ranked, there is actually very little that ranking tells agencies about how to develop

new data sets or how to make data useful to citizens. Some of this information will be

communicated to agencies through comment systems and through the development of

data communities and communities of practice. In addition, consistent collection of

downloads by dataset and agency reported to agencies and the public, as well as tracking

of programming interfaces that connect with data on data.gov—none of which is not

currently a feature of data.gov—may also provide insight into the usability and value of

data. Certainly, as the concept of information quality as a method for determining value

is considered, new tools for feedback and interaction in the development process must be

sought for all interactive information and data systems.

In some states and in other countries, efforts are being made to quantify the value of

―open data‖ movements, as efforts like data.gov are more commonly known. An

example of the quantitative value in open data efforts is found in the Apps for Democracy

data challenge. Apps for Democracy challenged data developers to design interactive

Internet applications that were based on government data, like an application that would

allow citizens to access geo data and map potholes in their neighborhood and

communicate the locations of those potholes for repair by the city. Apps for Democracy

offered awards for the best applications built upon data supplied by the district

government. In thirty days, at a cost of $50,000 in awards, participants developed 47

applications that would have cost $2.6 million if developed internally by the District of

Columbia (UN 2010, 18). Not all data and information platforms can be quantified in

terms of products developed, but the quantification of the value of data certainly assists in

the justification of investment in new technologies.

204

And it should be noted that data.gov, like most new interactive Internet technologies in

government, has only recently been launched and that it is considered in beta form. On

May 3, 2011, the United States government began a transition of data.gov from and

interactive data site to a social data site. With social data, a user can access data, localize

it, and map it to find local services. Citizens can share it via mobile and tablet devices, as

well as connect to with an interactive interface that allows for instant visualization and

mining of data from any device. Citizens can submit data and connect data from multiple

data sets to develop new data sets. Data communities can connect online simultaneously

to work collaboratively on data sets and with information. It expands the application

development platform by allowing user defined experiences with data. In the face of

social data and information, governments must not only track quality but usability as both

will become increasingly important.

Eppler might suggest that the methods of collecting information about information

quality take the form of focus groups and surveys. Certainly, those are fine options. But

with social media, these focus groups and surveys, because of the online nature of

interaction, would occur in an online, real-time format that allows users to see a fairly

quick response. If they do not occur in this manner where participants understand the

monitoring and measurement tools and outcomes, citizens may use the social aspect of

the forums to create pressure groups and become destructive of community projects and

data streams. Ground rules and response forums will become paramount in maintaining

quality and managing the social data and information experience.

205

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

Incorporated into the Open Government Directive issued by the Obama administration in

January of 2009 was a requirement that agencies collect input from the public in the

development of individual agency creation of their open government plans (Obama

2009). To fulfill the requirement of public involvement in the development of the plans,

the Office of Management and Budget asked the General Services Administration to

identify an online tool that could be used to solicit and collect citizen input easily and

quickly and over a short timeframe to meet the tight deadlines presented in the Directive.

The General Services Administration researched tools that could be implemented on

agency websites that would allow for input by employees and citizens and that would

incorporate some sort of ranking and commentary system for the ideas presented (GSA

2010). Requirements of the tool were that the tool be easy to learn to use, easy to use, and

simple to implement in individual agency websites. It was also important that the tool

have the capacity to be used by multiple agencies in a way that allowed for

personalization of the appearance of the tool by the agency but that was consistent in use

capabilities across agencies.

During the latter part of 2009, the General Services Administration identified, modified,

and came to agreement on terms with IdeaScale. They also trained employees at each

major federal agency to implement and execute the Idea Scale tool, and provided

technical and training support throughout the IdeaScale execution process. The cost of

the IdeaScale tool to the General Services Administration was less than $10,000, which

they did not pass on to the agencies. The cost of the tool to agencies was zero.

Ultimately, the tool was made available to 26 of the major federal agencies (GSA 2010).

206

Some agencies were eliminated from eligibility to use the tool due to agency restrictions

or agency choice. For example, the Central Intelligence agency did not opt to employ the

IdeaScale tool and notes in their Open Government plan that because of the nature of

their agency, finding the balance between open government and the secret nature of the

agency poses difficulties to citizen engagement with the agency (CIA 2010). In an effort

to strike this balance, they did not use the IdeaScale tool. Rather, they collected input on

their Open Government plan via email, facsimile, and mail. However, most agencies

opted to use the tool. The unit of analysis for this research is the agency. Data were

collected and reported at the agency level.

Experimental Design

During a six week period from February 9 through March 19, 2010, the IdeaScale tool

was implemented and the public ideation process was conducted with the IdeaScale tool.

Agencies participated in using or not using the IdeaScale tool in a non-random manner

that lead to a quasi experiment. That quasi experiment lent itself to the research design

and data collected for this analysis. For this research, agencies that used the IdeaScale

tool were assigned a one or a zero based on their participation on not. Thus, if an agency

used the tool, they were assigned a one and if an agency chose not to use the tool, they

were assigned a zero.

207

A model of the research design follows:

NR: 01 X 02, user = 1

NR: 01 02, non-user = 0

Nineteen of the 23 agencies using the IdeaScale tool also reported customer services

scores for both 2009 and 2010. Those customer service scores were derived from the

survey completed by ForeSee Results for the American Customer Service Index. The

American Customer Service Index reported scores for an additional nine agencies that did

not use the Idea Scale tool. Included in the sample are data related to agencies that did

and did not use the IdeaScale tool and that reported scores for customer service in years

2009 and 2010. The agencies that used the IdeaScale tool can be considered a ―treated‖

group while the agencies that did not use the tool are the control group. Explored in

analysis are the differences in ―treatment effects‖ between the treatment and control

group. The treatment effects of interest in this analysis are any returns to customer

service and utility derived from tool use.

The goal of the quantitative analysis is to understand what the returns of use of the

interactive Internet tool is to the customer service valuation of each major governmental

agency in the United States. This goal is accomplished through the observation of

individual agency tool use behaviors associated with use and non-use of the IdeaScale

tool. Because the tool was only in use a brief time and because the technologies are in the

early stages of implementation and development, at best, a slightly discernable statistical

signal of effects is expected for analysis. However, even an understanding of a positive

208

or negative impact of the tool might prove useful when developing value metrics for

assessing the effects of interactive Internet tools.

Data

For the model in this analysis, the dependent variable is CS Change, the change in

customer service score from 2009 to 2010. The independent or explanatory variable

included in analysis is the presence or not of the IdeaScale tool.

Table 5.3 Variables Included in Analysis

Variable Name Variable Description

CS Change The difference between the 2009 and 2010

customer service scores

IdeaScale A binary variable where one equals the use

of the IdeaScale tool by a given agency and

zero equates to an agency not using the

IdeaScale tool

Customer Service Score

The customer service scores reported by ForeSee Results are compiled from surveys

taken throughout the year on individual government agency websites (ACSI 2010).

Agency surveys incorporate questions related to customer satisfaction related to

individual agency websites. Surveys are administered through pop-up windows that

appear on agency web pages when a user enters the agency website. Upon pop-up, users

209

are asked if they would like to opt into the survey. If a user opts in, ForeSee

electronically follows the user as he or she uses the website and administers a survey as

the user exits the agency web space. While the primary survey questions are consistent

across agencies, agencies can personalize certain questions on the survey. An example of

a survey administered by ForeSee for a government agency may be found in the

Supplimental.

Results collected from the survey are gathered by ForeSee and then associated with

specific page categories associated with parameters defined by the American Customer

Service Index. Those categories relate to the function of the page and include e-

commerce and transaction, news and information, portal and main site, and jobs and

careers. For this analysis, where agencies had more than one score due to categorization,

results were combined and averaged to compile a composite score for each agency.

Additionally, results collected are reported quarterly. For this analysis, results were

compiled across quarters for the year to derive annual customer service score.

The dependent variable used in analysis, CS Change, is the difference in annual customer

service score between years 2009 and 2010. Customer service scores for all agencies

included in analysis are in the Supplimental.

Historically, the average change in aggregate customer service score per year from 2003,

when select, mostly non-defense related agencies began collecting customer service input

on their web spaces, to 2010 is a 0.21 point increase in score for all federal agencies.

There is an overall upward trend in aggregate customer service score with a few notable

downward flows. The most noticeable downward spike occurred in the second quarter of

210

2007 and ran through the second quarter of 2008. During this time, the government

implemented the customer service measures for several large departments including the

Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and measures for the satisfaction of

applicants for disability and other benefits from the Social Security Administration and

the Department of Veterans Affairs. With the inclusion of these agencies in measurement

of customer service satisfaction, all major agencies were represented in tracking customer

service satisfaction score. In Figure 5.3, the aggregate customer service score is charted

by quarter and year.

Figure 5.3 Aggregate Federal Agency Customer Service Score by Quarter and Year

Source: Author‘s Calculation using ForeSee Data: http://www.foreseeresults.com/

211

President Obama took office and introduced the Open Government Directive in the first

quarter of 2009. From the first to the second quarters of 2009, customer service score

remains constant. A bump in customer service score might be expected upon the Open

Government announcement. However, it was not until the third and fourth quarters of

2009 that the agencies began to post information about their open government initiatives

on their web pages. In the third quarter of 2009, as agencies posted more information

about Open Government and began to incorporate some multi-media and interactive tools

in the web space, aggregate customer service scores rose by 1.6 points. This 1.6 point

increase in score is the single largest increase in customer service score since the second

quarter of 2004 where there is a 1.8 point increase and decrease between the third quarter

of 2003 and first quarter of 2004.

The trend of higher customer service scores flows through the end of 2009 and into the

beginning of 2010. The change in aggregate customer service score stays fairly constant

from quarter three of 2009 through quarter two of 2010 when the IdeaScale tool was

introduced. It is not until the third quarter of 2003 when the results of the IdeaScale

projects are published and implemented that there is a bump in customer service score.

In the third quarter, the aggregate customer service score increases by 0.6 points. This

increase in aggregate customer service score is the second largest increase in customer

service score since the third quarter of 2008 when there was a one point increase in

aggregate customer service score. The results of participation seemingly garner the

highest increases in customer service score.

212

IdeaScale

IdeaScale is an interactive Internet tool designed to collect input around a certain topic or

question for discussion. The topic for discussion or question is chosen by the site

administrator and posed via the Internet through the IdeaScale interface. Users log in

with an email and password. Each user is uniquely identified and all use is logged for

each user. Depicted in Figure 5.4 is the login interface. Note that activity on IdeaScale

can be logged into from associated sites and that activity on IdeaScale can be

communicated back through those sites. Each IdeaScale ideation interface also links to

Facebook and Twitter.

Figure 5.4 IdeaScale Login

Source: IdeaScale http://ideascale.com/

Along with submitting ideas related to the topic, users can comment on ideas, and vote

ideas up or down based on their personal opinion of preference and priority of an

individual idea. Each idea must contain a title and text describing the idea. Additionally,

users may add tags to classify or categorize the idea submitted. Figure 5.5 shows the

ideation interface.

213

Figure 5.5 IdeaScale Submit Your Idea

Source: IdeaScale http://ideascale.com/

The category marker allows site administrators to break out ideas by predefined

categories related to the primary discussion topic or question posed. Users can categorize

their idea according to the preset categories defined by site administrators. As seen in the

graphic below, users can vote up or down, as well as comment on ideas of themselves

and others. The purpose of the voting function is to promote sorting of ideas through the

user based priorities. After ideas, comments, and votes are collected, results are reported

to agencies and site administrators in the form of Excel files. The Excel files contain

agency or site administrator name, idea title, idea text, text, comments text, votes up,

votes down, net votes, raw number of comments, time accessed, status of user, and

username of user.

For the Open Government directive, IdeaScale was implemented to garner citizen input

related to Open Government plans. The IdeaScale tool was posted in tandem with the

214

agency Open Government plan on each individual agency‘s open page—which is a web

page dedicated to individual agency open government activities, required by the

directive. Ideas were collected for each agency‘s Open Government plan around five

topic categories; transparency, participation, collaboration, innovation, site help, and

open comments. Transparency, participation, collaboration, and innovation categories

relate directly to ideals outset in the Open Government directive. Site help refers to

questions about the site and about using the IdeaScale tool. Open ideas allows users to

submit random or unrelated or other ideas. Users were able to submit ideas, idea tags,

comments, and votes for each of the topic areas. Users were comprised of members of

the public as well as federal government employees. The site was monitored by agency

staff for appropriate use and any help needs.

In Figure 5.6 is a graphic depicting the IdeaScale interface for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration Open Government plan.

215

Figure 5.6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration IdeaScale Interface

Source: Open NASA: https://opennasa.ideascale.com/

216

After each agency completed the IdeaScale process, the parent IdeaScale company

compiled an Excel spreadsheet for each agency that detailed the participation for each

individual agency. Within the spreadsheet were data for the number of unique

participants, the full text of ideas received, the full text of comments received, the

number of votes total, the number of votes ―up‖ for an idea, the number of votes ―down‖

for an idea, and other participation details. For this research, each of those individual

sheets was consolidated and a master database of comments, votes, and participation was

developed.

Ultimately, for the projects included in analysis and over the six weeks of IdeaScale

availability, 6,279 ideas, 30,784 comments, and 374,313 net votes were submitted by

22,768 unique users. Of the ideas submitted, 2,171 were related to transparency, 1,159

were related to participation, 577 were related to collaboration, 473 were related

innovation, 81 were related to site help, 1,569 were open comments, and 249 were

uncategorized ideas. Below is a depiction of the top 150 words used, weighted by

number of times used, in the ideas submitted through IdeaScale for the following

agencies: Departments of Commerce, Defense, Interior, Justice, Labor, State,

Transportation, Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, General Service

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel

Management, Social Security Administration, and the Veterans Administration.

217

Figure 5.7 Words Most Used in IdeaScale Ideation Process

Source: Author compiled data from IdeaScale output, using Wordle: http://www.wordle.net/

The words used most often in the ideation process were NASA, public, information,

people, government, and data. And, while the ideas were fairly specific to agency,

themes related to making data and information available to the public and to employees

as well as developing tools to help visualize and communicate that data, along with

specific services and ideas related to agency mission issues were present in most ideas

submitted to agencies. For example, the Department of Defense received requests for

data related to post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide reporting to the public. The

Department of Defense also received questions from employees that related to housing

benefits and standardization of practices and ideas for how to connect citizens and

employees to the data and information requested. The Department of State received

suggestions for new technologies that citizens would like included in their web space,

along with ideas for bettering passport and VISA services, as well as requests for

218

information about strategic planning and goals for diplomacy. The Social Security

Administration received many comments on access to health and benefits data by citizens

and by employees and requests for tools for using data to help in service provision, along

with recommendations for how to involve citizens more in the agency communications

process. For almost every agency, there was a request for more access and for more

online venues through which to provide feedback and have a conversation with the

individual agency. Equally, there were also ideas submitted for how citizens could be

involved and how citizens wanted to be involved in the ideation process and in

connecting their web space or organization to data provided by agencies. Overall, the

communications were fairly two-way with requests and ideas floating to the surface

frequently. And, users were fairly good at self-moderating the discussions, promoting

ideas and comments of substance and voting down ideas that turned into rants or lectures.

As a side note, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is commonly viewed

as an early adopter in the open government initiative and in adoption of new

technologies. This view may be the cause for the number of ideas that contained the

word ―NASA.‖ Several participants made reference to the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration using agency practices as examples to follow, as well as

commenting about the agency‘s successes to other agencies. However, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration was not the largest recipient of ideas. The agency

that received the most ideas was the Social Security Administration. They received a

total of 4,205 ideas and participation from more than 14,000 citizens. The National

Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked second for the number of ideas generated,

420 ideas, and third for the number of unique participants with 1,365 participants. A

219

table of IdeaScale participation, ideas generated, comments generated, and votes is in

Supplimental 5.3.

For the agencies using the IdeaScale tool, most record choosing between three and 11

ideas submitted through the IdeaScale tool on which to follow through in their open

government activities. The following agencies are included in analysis.

Table 5.4 Agencies Included in Analysis

Central Intelligence Agency International Trade Commission

Department of Commerce National Archives and Records Administration

Department of Defense National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Interior National Institute for Standards and Technology

Department of Justice Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Department of Labor Office of Personnel Management

Department of State Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

Department of Transportation Small Business Administration

Environmental Protection Agency Social Security Administration

Federal Deposit and Insurance

Corporation

Department of Treasury

Government Accountability Office Department of Agriculture

General Services Administration Veterans Administration

Health and Human Services Executive Office of the White House

220

Descriptive Statistics

Outlined in the table below are the descriptive statistics for the variables included in

analysis. Reported for each variable is the number of observations, the mean, the

standard deviation from the mean, the minimum and maximum value of each variable.

Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics

Variable Observations Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

CS Change 26 0.855 2.503 -5.71 9.16

IdeaScale 26 0.731 0.452 0 1

For the dependent variable CS Change, or the change in customer service from 2009 to

2010, scores are reported for all 26 agencies included in analysis. The average change in

customer scores from 2009 to 2010 for agencies was 0.855 points with a maximum

change in score of 9.16 points reported for the United States International Trade

Commission and a minimum of -5.71 points reported for the Department of Interior. The

standard deviation for the change in customer service was 2.5 points.

For the variable IdeaScale, or the binary variable indicating use or not of the IdeaScale

tool by an individual agency, information is reported for all 26 agencies included in

analysis. The average number of agencies using the IdeaScale tool was 0.73, or nearly 70

percent of agencies in the data set. The average number of ideas submitted to agencies

221

was 241.5 ideas with a maximum number of 4,205 ideas submitted to agencies using the

IdeaScale tool and a minimum of zero, representing those agencies not using the

IdeaScale tool. The standard deviation for the number of ideas submitted was 814.95

ideas. For those agencies using the IdeaScale tool, the minimum number of 30 ideas

submitted was to the National Archives and Records Administration. The maximum

number of 4,205 was submitted to the Social Security Administration.

Model and Outcomes

For analysis, a difference in difference model is used to discern any benefit to agencies of

implementing an interactive Internet tool related to participation. For this model, CS

Change is used as the dependent variable and IdeaScale as the independent variable of

interest. The goal of modeling is to discover any change in customer service that may be

related to the use of the interactive Internet tool IdeaScale by federal agencies.

The Difference in Difference Model

The difference in difference model is typically used when outcomes for two groups may

be observed over two time periods. In the first time period, no member of the group

receives an intervention or treatment. In the second time period, one portion of the group

receives a treatment and one portion does not. After the conclusion of the second time

period, the average gain in the group that was not treated is subtracted from the group

that received treatment. The differences between the groups are considered the treatment

effect, or the gains received by those receiving treatment.

222

Because the same group units from which the average effects are observed over time,

permanent or time sensitive biases are understood to be controlled. For this analysis,

changes in customer service score as related to use or not of the IdeaScale tool are

examined.

The difference in difference model:

where

(Wooldridge 2002)

The dependent variable for analysis is a calculation of the change in customer service

score and is related to the use or not use of the IdeaScale tool. If the IdeaScale tool is

perceived as valuable, it is expected that those agencies using the IdeaScale tool will

receive an increase in customer service score.

For the initial model, all 26 agencies are included in estimation. The results of modeling

are included in the table below.

Table 5.6 DID Change in Customer Service Score from 2009-2010 with Outliers

Coefficient Standard Error P-value

IdeaScale -0.382 1.127 0.738

Constant 1.134 0.963 0.25

223

As the model constant coefficient suggests, overall customer services scores rose by an

approximate, statistically insignificant one point among agencies. However, according to

the model output, implementing the IdeaScale tool has a negative 0.4 point reduction

effect. With a p-value of 0.74, that negative customer service effect is insignificant. This

negative outcome is unexpected as the research hypothesis was that implementing the

IdeaScale tool would produce a positive and significant effect on customer service.

Among the data are two extreme outliers, the United States International Trade

Commission and the Department of Interior. The United States International Trade

Commission did not use the IdeaScale tool to collect comments on their Open

Government Plan. For the 2009-2010 year, customer service score rose 9.16 points. The

Department of Interior did use the IdeaScale tool and their customer service score

decreased by 5.71 points. The change is customer service score for both agencies is in

the third deviation or more from the mean. These changes in customer service score are

unexpected as a more participatory web space is seemingly a more valuable web space,

which should translate to a higher customer service score. It is assumed that the increase

and decrease in customer service score is due to some exogenous factor other than the

incorporation of interactive Internet tools. Extremes on both sides of the data distort the

statistical signal in modeling. To retain a clearer statistical signal, the two outliers were

removed from modeling.

Following are the descriptive statistics of the data without outliers present.

224

Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics for Data without Outliers

Variable Observations Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

CS Change 24 0.782 1.39 -1.46 4.42

IdeaScale 24 0.75 0.442 0 1

When the outliers are removed from modeling, 24 agencies are present in the data. The

average change in customer service score from 2009 to 2010 is a 0.782 point average

increase in customer service score across all agencies. The difference in the average

customer service score from the data with outliers and the data without outliers is

approximately 0.07 points. However, the difference in standard deviation between the

data with and without outliers is nearly 1.2 points—from 2.53 points to 1.39 points. The

modeling results differ greatly as well. Results from modeling follow in the table.

Table 5.8 DID Change in Customer Service Score from 2009-2010 without Outliers

Coefficient Standard Error P-value

IdeaScale 1.315 0.608 0.042

Constant -0.203 0.527 0.703

When separating the effects between those agencies that used the IdeaScale tool versus

those that did after removing the outliers, modeling results indicate that overall customer

service decreased by a statistically insignificant 0.2 points. However, among those

agencies using the IdeaScale tool, customer service rose by 1.32 points or a total of 1.112

points, at nearly 96 percent level of confidence, a statistically significant increase.

225

Because the model is a model of a population, a positive statistical signal is clear. The R-

squared value on the model is 0.1753, which is not high. However, for a tool that was

implemented for 12.5 percent of the year calculated for customer service, the impact is

discernable. There is a statistically significant increase in customer service score from

2009 to 2010 for those agencies that used the IdeaScale tool.

Quantitative Modeling Conclusions

The primary relationship of concern for the difference in difference model was between

any increases in customer service score and those agencies using the IdeaScale tool. The

goal of analysis was to discover if the IdeaScale tool had any effect on customer service

score. Throughout each of the models included in analysis, the IdeaScale tool had a

positive and sometimes significant role in explaining the increase in customer service for

those agencies that used the IdeaScale tool.

From a policy perspective, if the government leadership values and wishes to see

interactive Internet tools employed, they must communicate the value to customers to

agencies and agencies must see a benefit for developing and using the technologies

outside of a perceived mandate. An increase in customer service is indeed a value to

agencies. However, agencies should also be prompted to explore varied tools and

determine which have the best outcomes for their individual agency in meeting the

service provision goals of the agency in addition to providing value to customers. Only

when agencies have adopted the tools based on internal motivations and to suit their

service aims will the tools be sustainable.

226

THE VALUE CONVERSATION

Determining the value of new interactive Internet tools in government was not prescribed

in the directive, nor has the administration put forth any evaluation rubrics or

mechanisms for agencies to report successes and failures with the technologies or with

their Open Government initiatives. In the directive, the only inclusions of value related to

the flagship initiative. Agencies were tasked with defining a method for evaluating their

flagship efforts. Those measures were as varied as the projects, and by in large, have not

been reported formally. However, they are the only substantive indicators for how

agencies have begun the value conversation around the implementation of new

interactive Internet technologies in agencies.

To gain an understanding of how agencies have begun to think about the value of

interactive Internet technologies, an examination of the value conversation that occurs

within the agency Open Government plan was conducted. In exploration of the value

conversation, agencies used multiple methods of analysis and identified multiple

beneficiaries in analysis. Most agencies talked about value in at least one of the

following ways, 1) as a cost reduction mechanism, 2) as a genitor of increased

participation, 3) as a mechanism for time reduction in completing tasks, 4) as a promoter

of collaboration, or 5) as an instrument in value creation. Most agencies identified at

least one of the following as the primary beneficiary, 1) the public, 2) partner agencies, 3)

project participants, or 4) themselves.

227

Some agencies identify the real cost or energy savings as a mechanism for valuation. For

example, the National Technical Information Service at the Department of Commerce

will measure the effect of increased exposure via Data.gov by comparing information

related to future publication ordering information to existing baseline data. They identify

value in reducing the numbers of orders to the agency and the associated cost reductions

for the agency. For most who hold the conversation about value in cost reduction, there

is not an current data on tracking of these costs or any reporting of any costs actually

reduced. However, most who do identify cost reduction as a measure of value can sight

in particular the cost that will be reduced. Therefore, measurement of cost and reporting

is possible.

Some agencies construct the value conversation around the direct benefits the

organization will receive through the use of new technologies. Benefits to organizations

are mostly cited in terms of reduced time to completion of a project, reduced costs,

interaction with the public and with fellow agencies and employees, and with several

agency specific benefits. The Department of Treasury published an entire set of benefits

expected to be received by the organization from developing new technologies and

participating in the Open Government Directive in their plan. In Table 5.8 is an excerpt

of a selected few of that conversation:

228

Table 5.9 Department of Treasury Open Government New Technology Benefits

Statement

Bureau Initiative Description Benefits

Departmental

Offices Office of the

Chief Information

Officer

Wiki pilot for

Paperwork

Reduction Act

information

collection

Engage public

participation via a

wiki with the IRS

information

collection 1545‐0056, Application

for Recognition of

Exemption under

Section 501(c)(3) of

the Internal Revenue

Code. Public

comments for

information

collections via the

Federal Register

process are minimal

to none.

More

collaborative and

participatory

process

Reduce

paperwork burden

hours

Reduce cost of

publishing Federal

Register notices

Reduce cost of

producing and

distributing the

form

Internal Revenue

Service

Federal Student Aid

(FSA) Datashare

Supports the

simplification of the

Department of

Education‘s online

Free Application for

Federal Student Aid

(FAFSA) process by

providing applicants

with 14 IRS data

elements needed to

complete the FSA

forms.

Improve accuracy

Reduce applicant

burden

Reduce program

costs

Bureau of Public ―Kids‖ web site Plan to launch a web

229

The Department of Treasury expects to see returns in lowered costs, in time savings, in

better systems structures, and in increased participation of partners and the public, along

with opportunities to educate the public in new and innovative ways. While they do not

include specific tracking and measurement inventories for capturing the value explicitly,

by identifying the benefits to the organization, they do provide a baseline from which to

construct quantitative and qualitative evaluations of value.

Reciprocally, while some agencies view the benefit to them in terms of direct benefits,

the Council for Environmental Quality views the Open Government movement as a

method for building the values of their organization into other agencies and into the

larger national consciousness. They comment on the difficulty in how to measure the

effects of their Flagship initiative, GreenGov, in terms of open government and in terms

of using the initiative to successfully perpetuate the idea of sustainability:

Measuring the success of the GreenGov program in

reaching its broader goal of fundamentally and holistically

incorporating the goal of sustainability into Federal

operations is not easy to capture. It requires a

Debt

site for 6th to 12th

graders to educate

them on BPD, the

role of borrowing to

fund the federal

government, and

saving and investing

with Treasury

securities.

Educate the public

in fun and

interactive ways

Source: Information excerpted and extracted from Department of Treasury Open

Government Plan (Treasure 2010).

230

determination of difficult-to-answer questions: How

effective is the Sustainability Executive Order at

introducing ―sustainability‖ as a value in Federal

Government decision making? Do Federal employees

grasp the environmental, economic, and social

ramifications of government actions? Is government

investment in the built environment, contractor community,

and product procurement contributing to the growth of the

clean energy economy? Are the collaborative,

transparency, and participative mechanisms in the

Executive Order. functioning to effectively tap into a

widely-dispersed set of best practices of sustainable

operations (CEQ 2010)?

The Council for Environmental Quality interpreted the introduction of new technology

not simply as a compliance with a directive to use new technologies, but as an

opportunity to leverage those technologies and the parameters of Open Government to

add their values to the government as a whole. This addition of their values to the value

structure of other agencies not only benefits their agencies, but all of government.

However, as the Council notes, it is very difficult to measure the values of one agency

within another.

And, still other agencies identify value in terms of the benefit to the end consumer.

When the end consumer is the value target, the conversation typically involves aspects of

lower transaction costs, increased opportunities to participate with the agency or the

benefits of data provision. The Department of Defense recognizes multiple beneficiaries

and that value will be different for difference audiences. Following is an excerpt of the

measurement statement in the Department of Defense Open Government plan:

231

Table 5.10 Department of Defense Open Government Benefits by Audience

Audience Benefit

General Public The general public of American citizens and taxpayers

are the fundamental core intended audience for our

Data.gov contributions and Open Government efforts

as a whole. While soliciting input and requests directly

from citizens, we also plan to proactively release

datasets on topics of major interest in the news and to

the public. These are the types of datasets we would

also highlight on our Open Government Web site to

make them even more readily available. Additionally,

we have a range of information publicly available on

Web sites in a variety of formats which can be

leveraged by Data.gov.

Media In terms of their ability to analyze and utilize complex

data, the media audience often represents a middle

point between a casual citizen user and scientific or

technical experts with specific and advanced interests.

The media is often more interested in detailed versions

or analyses of the same high-profile data popular with

the general public.

Scientific, Academic and

Business Communities

Given the vast Defense infrastructure and budgetary

resources devoted to technical, scientific and medical

research, it is likely non-Department of Defense

entities may have interest in and find new value in

access to some of the data underlying these efforts. For

example, access to detailed (anonymized) medical

study data could be of benefit to medical and

pharmaceutical researchers and clean energy work

undertaken in the military could help stimulate new

ideas in the commercial sector. These potential users

also are likely to have the capability to utilize large

and complex datasets with more nuances than users

without the same level of subject expertise (DOD

2010).

232

Valuation of technologies and data and information are different for each audience. For

the general public, it‘s the provision of raw data and tools to deal with that data. For the

media, it‘s the provision of consolidated analysis for reporting. For scientists, engineers,

and professional communities, it‘s raw data for experimentation and exploration. To

measure value to multiple audiences, not only would various rubrics or measurement

tools be necessary, it is likely that in person interviews and focus groups would prove

useful. It might also be advisable to create a feedback mechanism when providing an

interactive Internet tool that is appropriate for multiple audiences so that general and

targeted measurements could be made and general and targeted adjustments could follow

measurement. However, measurement in relation to multiple audiences is possible and

probably most likely as the projects and tools using interactive Internet technologies are

not typically specific to one group of constituents.

At the conclusion of Global Pulse, the organizers published a value statement: ―Global

Pulse 2010 provided an opportunity to voice opinions, share ideas, and create innovative

solutions to social issues facing the global community within the fields of science and

technology, entrepreneurship, and human development. This was a unique opportunity to

influence a global conversation that built partnerships across borders, strengthened

understanding among cultures, and identified innovative solutions to the most pressing

social issues of our time.‖ They continue, in their evaluation document, ―A clear

message from Global Pulse 2010 is that the international development community and its

constituents valued the event because it enabled everyone to collaborate and share ideas

that can inspire individuals and organizations to act (USAID 2010).‖

233

As the quotes clearly indicate, the value identified for the event was the ability to

participate and deliberate with multiple partners and with individuals doing a wide

spectrum of global development work. As measures of value, event organizers report on

the nature of the participants, from what country and what organization each participant

originated, general demographics of participants, and the number of ideas and comments

generated for each area of concern for the project. In raw form, organizers measured who

participated and the level of participation.

However, they did not build follow-up or funding mechanisms to support action plans,

idea and project execution, and any outcomes measures. Equally, they did not develop an

interactive Internet technology to continue the conversation or where participants could

convene on a regular basis to report problems or progress, nor have they held a follow-up

event. In short, they did not consider sustainability of the technology or of the project

once the project was implemented. In fact, none of the plans deal with the sustainability

of their projects or with their plans for how to use technology to leverage any project

outcomes.

For Open Government to be successful and for agencies to continue the technology

implementation and development process, the value conversation requires direction and

shape with clear definition of benefits, recipients, and sustainability measures. It may

also require a common language for evaluation. Setting forth parameters like

transparency, participation, collaboration, and innovation is a vague call at best. Some

direction on words to use for evaluation and measurement ideas must be set forth from a

governing body for the agencies. Measuring the parameters of open government and the

use and impact of the technologies called for to execute those ideals across agencies and

234

dealing with multiple constituents will be a challenge. But, it is a necessary challenge if

technology implementation and open government are to succeed.

THE VALUE CONSTRUCT IN SUM

Theory suggests that the value of i-government and interactive technologies lies in the

quality of information provided. However, very few measures of information quality

exist for the data and information provided and used in tandem with new interactive

Internet technologies. The value constructs that are present consist mostly of ranking

systems that the public and partners can use to rank data, information, ideation outcomes,

and ideation comments. By in large, these ranking systems are used for a very small

portion of the data and information that is published. When they are used, the limited

rankings available suggest that data and information will be ranked fairly well.

Continued efforts to incorporate data and information quality objectives for new

technologies and within agencies along with continued efforts to include opportunities for

feedback on that data and information quality are essential components of shifting to i-

government.

In addition to information quality is actual valuation by customers. The current signal is

that there is value in interactive Internet tools when they are implemented on agency

websites. What is not known is the nature of that value or how to increase the use of

interactive tools and participation with agencies through these interactive tools. One

mechanism for understanding the value of interactive tools in agency website might

include a simple addition of a few questions on the ForeSee survey. Through some

235

targeted questions on the survey, agencies could 1) alert customers taking the general

survey that the tools exist—should they not have encountered them in their visit to the

agency website, and 2) derive the explicit value of new technologies as captured though

survey.

As agencies begin to construct the value conversation around their flagship initiatives, as

mandated in the Open Government directive, and around justifying the implementation of

more interactive Internet tools in their web space themes of the value conversation have

begun to emerge. Those themes relate to reduced transaction and access costs, increased

opportunities to participate, time reduction for completing tasks, a mechanism for

collaboration, and as an instrument for innovation. Most agencies identified at least one

multiple beneficiaries of their projects including the public, partner agencies, project

participants, and themselves.

In addition to those themes is a vocabulary of value that is different from the vocabulary

of e-government. That vocabulary consists of words like value implementation,

collaboration, education, usability, innovation, information quality, and customer service.

For two of those phrases, information quality and customer service, we have mechanisms

for understanding the value construct and established systems for getting at the value of

the systems and the technologies. For a third, participation, we have a system of counting

that has been accepted as appropriate when measuring participation—though it fails to

account for quality of participation and any sustainability of participation. For the rest of

the words, we have no value parameters and no clear definition of the value construct.

236

If we understand Open Government to be a culture change, a culture change that prompts

the use of new technologies, we can perhaps view successes at Open Government with

the execution and use of new interactive Internet technologies. We then must provide for

measures of value under the ideological and cultural language set forth in the open

government directive and build measures of value for the technologies. Without

measures of value, agencies cannot see clearly value delineation or a path for

development. Without value constructs, none of these efforts at culture change or

technology adoption will be successful without an evaluation structure to guide future

implementation and development.

237

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.1 AVERAGE RANKING AND RANKING WEIGHT OF DATA IN DATA.GOV

BY AGENCY

Agency

Average Ranking

of Data

Relative Weight in Average

Ranking

BBG 2 0.011788

CFTC 4 0.007859

CIA

0

CNS 4.333333 0.02554

DHS 3.8 0.111984

DOA 4.1 0.1611

DOC 3.45 0.13556

DOD 3.428571 0.094303

DOE 4.166667 0.196464

DOI 3.787234 0.349705

DOJ 3.133333 0.092338

DOL 3.6 0.176817

DOS 3.833333 0.045187

DOT 4.333333 0.02554

EAC 5 0.019646

ED 3.375 0.053045

EEOC 5 0.02947

EPA 4.042553 0.373281

FHFA 4 0.007859

EXIM 5 0.039293

FCC 3.25 0.02554

FDIC 4.666667 0.027505

FRB 5 0.009823

GAO

0

GSA 4.047619 0.166994

HHS 2.823529 0.094303

HUD 3 0.035363

IMLS 3.4 0.033399

MSPB 1.5 0.005894

NARA 4.230769 0.108055

NASA 2.333333 0.013752

NEA 1 0.001965

NLRB 2.5 0.019646

NIST

0

238

NRC 4.461538 0.113949

NSF 2 0.015717

NTSB 4.230769 0.108055

OPIC 5 0.009823

OPM 4.870968 0.29666

PBGC 4.666667 0.027505

RRB 2 0.003929

SBA 3.333333 0.019646

SEC 4.333333 0.02554

SSA 3.411765 0.113949

Treasury 2.5 0.098232

TVA 1 0.003929

USAID 4.666667 0.027505

USITC 4.5 0.017682

VA 3.333333 0.235756

WH 2.75 0.086444

239

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.2 EXAMPLE OF THE FORESEE CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY

Customer Satisfaction Survey

Thank you for visiting the Department of Homeland Security. You've been randomly

chosen to take part in a brief survey about our site to let us know what we're doing well

and where we can improve.

This survey is designed to gather feedback about the DHS.gov website; however, at the

end of the survey there is an opportunity to leave feedback about the Department of

Homeland Security in general.

All input you provide is strictly confidential. No personal information is being collected.

Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Required questions are denoted by an *

*On a scale 1-10 (1=Poor-10=Excellent)

1: *Please rate the number of clicks to get where you want on this site.

2: *Please rate the organization of search results on this site.

3: *Please rate how well the search results help you decide what to select.

4: *Please rate how quickly pages load on this site.

5: *Please rate the consistency of speed from page to page on this site.

6: *Please rate how thoroughly this website discloses information about what this

agency is doing.

7: *Please rate how quickly agency information is made available on this website.

8: *Please rate how well information about this agency's actions can be accessed by the

public on this website.

240

9: *What is your overall satisfaction with this site? 1=Very Dissatisfied, Very

Satisfied=10

10: *How well does this site meet your expectations? 1=Falls Short, Exceeds=10

11: *How does this site compare to your idea of an ideal website? 1=Not Very Close,

Very Close=10

12: *How likely are you to return to this site? 1=Very Unlikely, Very Likely=10

13: *How likely are you to recommend this site to someone else? 1=Very Unlikely,

Very Likely=10

14: *How likely are you to use this site as your primary resource for homeland security

information? 1=Very Unlikely, Very Likely=10

15: *How likely are you to express your thoughts or ideas to this agency in the next 90

days? 1=Very Unlikely, Very Likely=10

16: *How satisfied are you with the Department of Homeland Security overall? 1=Very

Dissatisfied, Very Satisfied=10

17: *I can count on this agency to act in my best interests.1=Strongly Disagree,

Strongly Agree=10

18: *I consider this agency to be trustworthy.1=Strongly Disagree, Strongly Agree=10

19: *This agency can be trusted to do what is right.1=Strongly Disagree, Strongly

Agree=10

20: *What is your primary purpose for visiting this site today?

Seeking a job

Student or academic research

Travel related

Security or law enforcement

Doing business with DHS

Immigration matters

Disaster preparedness

I work for DHS

241

Other, please specify

Other, please specify

21: *Were you able to complete your task?

Yes

No

21.1: Why were you unable to complete your task?

22: If you could make one improvement to this site, what would it be?

Thank you for your time in completing this survey. Your input is very valuable and will

help us improve your web experience.

242

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.3 FORESEE CUSTOMER SERVICE SCORES FOR 2009 AND 2010 FOR

AGENCIES INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS

Agency

2009 Composite

Score

2010 Composite

Score

Change in Customer

Service

CIA 81.54954256 80.08994129 -1.459601276

DOC 72.63879907 74.96678062 2.327981548

DOD 74.83253824 75.77788562 0.945347375

DOI 76.17333679 70.46012624 -5.713210552

DOJ 76.80725673 78.85439006 2.047133331

DOL 73.69664107 73.29792906 -0.398712017

DOS 70.84932132 72.62594938 1.776628055

DOT 73.07319175 72.53659238 -0.53659937

EPA 67.85724346 69.00257217 1.145328708

FDIC 72.34177748 71.58132231 -0.760455165

GAO 73.74545395 75.60273267 1.857278723

GSA 74.60908799 79.02839673 4.41930874

HHS 77.79254119 77.82465226 0.032111072

ITC 60.75370444 69.91138098 9.157676533

NARA 69.4845143 71.28857218 1.804057881

NASA 81.99202946 83.08146929 1.089439832

NIST 73.07125824 72.57990926 -0.491348985

NRC 71.67735799 71.5463781 -0.130979889

OPM 73.38283115 75.102337 1.719505842

PBGC 77.64576798 77.14328063 -0.502487353

SBA 72.47715048 74.29563151 1.818481027

SSA 80.68049438 80.7906312 0.110136822

Treasury 71.08707483 71.80734213 0.720267298

USDA 68.61087851 70.61198917 2.001110663

VA 73.49468487 72.14437192 -1.350312951

WH 68.4266354 69.01589338 0.589257977

243

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.4 IDEASCALE USE BY AGENCY

Agency IdeaScale IS Ideas

IS

Comments IS Votes IS Users

CIA 0 0 0 0 0

DOA 1 159 289 539 1443

DOC 1 38 80 351 166

DOD 1 123 238 1387 427

DOI 1 91 299 2347 472

DOJ 1 66 299 1351 363

DOL 0 0 0 0 0

DOS 1 53 67 674 368

DOT 1 121 175 1701 762

EPA 1 345 440 4157 1142

FDIC 0 0 0 0 0

GAO 0 0 0 0 0

GSA 1 74 132 446 256

HHS 0 0 0 0 0

ITC 0 0 0 0 0

NARA 1 30 34 351 122

NASA 1 420 868 8099 1365

NIST 0 0 0 0 0

NRC 1 51 30 283 113

OPM 1 57 84 308 194

PBGC 1 136 147 1410 508

SBA 1 32 50 230 141

SSA 1 4205 27000 347000 14000

Treasury 1 54 71 279 143

VA 1 186 448 3126 595

WH 1 38 33 274 188

244

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.5 CUSTOMER SERVICE SCORE BY QUARTER AND YEAR

Quarter and Year Score

Q3 03 70.9

Q4 03 69.1

Q1 04 70.9

Q2 04 70.3

Q3 04 71.2

Q4 04 72.1

Q1 05 71.9

Q2 05 72.6

Q3 05 73.5

Q4 05 73.9

Q1 06 73.5

Q2 06 74

Q3 06 73.7

Q4 06 73.9

Q1 07 73.4

Q2 07 73.7

Q3 07 73.3

Q4 07 72.9

Q1 08 72.4

Q2 08 72.9

Q3 08 73.9

Q4 08 74.1

Q1 09 73.6

Q2 09 73.6

Q3 09 75.2

Q4 09 75.2

Q1 10 75.1

Q2 10 74.7

Q3 10 75.3

Q4 10 75

245

SUPPLIMENTAL 5.6 TABLE OF ALL VARIABLES COLLECTED FOR MODELING

Variable Name Variable Description

2010 CS Score An aggregated estimation of customer

service as derived from the ASCI Customer

Service Survey for 2010

2009 CS Score An aggregated estimation of customer

service as derived from the ASCI Customer

Service Survey for 2009

CS Change The difference between the 2009 and 2010

customer service scores

IdeaScale A binary variable where one equals the use

of the IdeaScale tool by a given agency and

zero equates to an agency not using the

IdeaScale tool

IS Ideas The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool

IS Comments The number of comments related to the

ideas submitted via the IdeaScale tool for a

given agency

IS Votes The number of votes, positive and

negative, related to the ideas submitted via

the IdeaScale tool for a given agency

IS Users The number of unique users, as determined

by log in information, of the IdeaScale tool

for a given agency

FB Like The number of "likes" on Facebook

received by the IdeaScale discussion for a

given agency

Twitter The number of micro-blogs submitted via

Twitter about the IdeaScale discussion for

a given agency

Transparency The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool that relate to

agency or government transparency as

outlined in the agency's Open Government

Plan

246

Participation The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool that relate to

civic participation as outlined in the

agency's Open Government Plan

Collaboration The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool that relate to

agency, government, business, and civic

collaboration as outlined in the agency's

Open Government Plan

Innovation The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool that relate to

agency or government innovation as

outlined in the agency's Open Government

Plan

Site Help The number of ideas submitted to a given

agency via the IdeaScale tool that relate to

site help for the IdeaScale tool

Open Comments The number of open comments submitted

to a given agency via the IdeaScale tool

Idea Coll Time The duration of time that the IdeaScale tool

was open for use

OG Plan Score A numerical scoring of each Agency's

Open Government Plan by an external

agency

DataGov Data The number of data sets loaded into

data.gov by agency

DataGov Tools The number of data tools developed for

and loaded into data.gov by agency

DataGov Rankings Citizen ranking from one to five of the

quality of data sets by set on data.gov

DataGov Ranking Votes Number of votes individual citizen

rankings of data sets received on data.gov

DataGov Ranking Percent The percentage of data by agency that

received a certain ranking on data.gov

DataGov Ranking Average The average ranking of data ranked by

agency on data.gov

NumEmp The number of employees by federal

agency

Employee Age: Minus 20 to 34, 35 to 54,

55 to 65+

The number of employees within a given

age range as noted in employment paper

work by agency

247

Employee Race: White, Hispanic, Asian,

African American, Other Race

Number of employees of a given race as

denoted in employment paper work by

agency

Number of Years of Service of Employees:

4 Years or Less, 5-19 Years, 20-35+ Years

Number of employees serving a given

length of time at a given federal agency

Job Classification of Employees: Blue

Collar, Professional, Administrative,

Technical, Clerical, Other White Collar

Number of employees within a given job

class by agency as defined by the Office of

Personnel Management

Wage Range of Employees: 39,999 and

Less, 40,000 to 49,999, 50,000 to 59,999,

60,000 to 69,999, 70,000 to 79,999, 80,000

to 89,999, 90,000 to 99,999, 100,000 to

109,999, 110,000 to 119,999, 120,000 to

129,999, 130,000+

Number of employees within a certain

salary range by agency as defined by the

Office of Personnel Management

248

Chapter Six: Nexus Rising

Essential themes that run throughout research are the similarities and differences between

e-government and i-government, the questions of the legal and architectural differences

between the two and whether we are moving from a state of e-government to i-

government. The exploration of those themes offers insight into an emerging

organizational form. That form provides the foundation from which new information

policies will be derived and executed and offers a vision of the modern bureaucracy and

new concepts of democracy.

SYSTEMATIC THEMES

In essence, e-government is grounded in systems that are transactional in nature, in both

the relationship with the citizen and in the function of the system. In e-government,

citizens are considered customers and are the recipients of services online. Participation

is an equally transactional experience where commentary and letters may be exchanged,

but not one in which deliberation or discussion occurs. The value of e-government is in

increased access to government for citizens, in lowered transaction costs for government

and citizens, and in increased efficiencies and effectiveness for the government

organization. The vocabulary around and actions of e-government are primarily geared

toward meeting the purely informational, transactional and service objectives of

government.

249

E-government information systems are geared toward accommodating transactions. The

information systems may have different web facing across agencies of government, but

they have the same background functionality. They are systems where information can

be published in a public way, and which may front a database behind the web space.

That database is an input-output system where data is entered and stored and where

output forms and products, like licenses, tax processes, and benefits estimations can be

generated. The Internet architecture underpinning e-government is comprised of limited

web spaces that house information, input-output tables, and execution forms. E-

government was implemented in government as a systematic business practice across all

agencies.

I-government differs from e-government in that it is based on the interaction of citizens

and government to contribute to a process or data or information set or to develop

something new. It is far more concerned with the flow of data and information among

government and citizens than the transactional function of service provision. Its

architecture is broad and expansive and includes varied nodes that house spaces for

conversations, real-time collaboration, opportunities to develop and manipulate data.

These systems provide new platforms for innovation in government and between

government and the private sector. They also provide a new platform for carrying on the

policy conversation and a foundation for new partnerships in executing that policy

framework. The vocabulary and actions around i-government include the concepts of

open data and open government, interaction, transparency, and collaboration. I-

government‘s implementation was couched in democratic-speak with the ability of

agencies to interpret the command for implementation in methods specific to the agency.

Its value is not yet known but a new vocabulary for value is developing.

250

A tension exists at several levels of e-government and i-government. That tension, from

the organizational perspective, is the balance of a strong infrastructure that is consistent

across agencies and the inclusion of new, varied technologies that are different across

agencies. Agencies must balance the development of strong infrastructure systems while

adding new functionalities and tools that allow for interaction. And government

leadership must strive to build as much consistency as possible throughout the agencies

of government so that service and quality gaps do not appear among agencies. Added to

this tension is the responsibility of agencies and government leadership to promote

participation of citizens in government as part of democratic action. With new interactive

Internet technologies, new opportunities and new forms of organization and democracy

are possible. These new forms of organization and democracy add more complexity to

the government structure and have new implications for democracy.

THE AGENCY OF AGENCIES

The power of a Weberian command and control bureaucratic structure where agencies

depend on hierarchical systems to hand down orders and understand the expectation that

they will follow orders allows for uniform action that can be called for and enforced

across government agencies. In a federated bureaucracy, where agencies are subject to

bureaucratic decisions but where agencies have some level of agency, this power is relied

upon to systematize and standardize information systems and technology efforts. The

beauty of bureaucratic command and control power is that agencies respond to it and,

251

though sometimes grudgingly and slowly, adopt systems and practices demanded by the

commander.

Equally, the network structure that is inherent in information systems promotes

interaction and the decentralization of power from the bureaucracy. With new interactive

information technologies—especially as implemented as tools of open government,

democracy, and innovation—these networks become larger and incorporate more levels

of partnership and engagement with citizens and the private sector. But these networks,

by function and the physics of linking architecture, rely upon a backbone of trusted data

and information. If data and information are not trusted, if the proper feedback loops and

tools are not provided to assist in data and information management, and if there is no

reflection of the citizen voice in the evolution of information and data and systems, then

there will be no interaction with the new systems. Citizens, employees, and partner

agencies will drift away from the government and to another source of information and

data and tools to use and evolve information and data.

THE NEXUS

The foundation of trusted information and data that the government provides is essential

to new interactive systems. It is the backbone of interaction, the core of the web. The

network relies on the command and control structure to provide demands for consistent

information technology development and for the production of trusted data and

information. Only when commands and controls are executed can the net work. As the

net works, citizens and partners have more opportunity to engage in participatory

252

activities, in collaborative activities, and in activities that will spur innovation. As new

interactive information systems emerge, the government organization becomes a nexus.

At its center, this structure is founded upon a backbone of governmental data and

methods for accessing that data provided by the government (a trusted source). The

backbone is supported by rib organizations (government departments, non-profits, and

businesses) that access and distribute data provided by the government through

information tools and standards developed by the government for the purpose of

information sharing and collaboration. Connecting and supporting among, between, and

around the ribs and backbone are individual entities sharing information, collaborating,

Figure 6.1 Government as Nexus

Source: "Nexus" by Erika Strecker and Tony Higdon, Kentucky Arts Council,

http://artscouncil.ky.gov/Press_Images/Nexus_day.jpg

Government

Backbone

Rib

OrganizationsConnective

Entities

Government

Backbone

Rib

OrganizationsConnective

Entities

253

developing new ideas, information, and tools that are linked to the source. This

organizational structure is less vertical than the hierarchical structure underpinning e-

governance and is more horizontal in nature. The governmental organization form that

emerges with i-government is a Nexus.

The Nexus places the government at the center of the Industrial Age and the Information

Age, it is both centralized and decentralized, and is predicated on the idea that the

government be the backbone supporting information production, dissemination, and

provider of tools to access and use data to inform the public and the policy process. The

government is supported by rib organizations—both internal and external to the

government—that access and distribute data among citizens to encourage citizen

participation in and education about the governmental process. Citizens connect with

both the backbone and the ribs to engage in the governance process. In the Nexus, value

is generated internally to the government in the form of increased collaboration and

externally in the form of greater public participation in the democratic process. But it

also has returns in higher valuation of government agencies, in increased quality of data

and information, and in real dollar value through the products of innovation.

THE NEXUS AND I-GOVERNMENT LINK

Within the nexus organization and as part of i-government, the roles of citizens and

partners change. The concept of citizen expands to include democratic collaboration.

Participation is traditionally thought of as citizens engaging with government to assist in

the democratic decision making process. With a shift to i-government, the concept of

254

participation conceptually differs from the traditional interpretation. Collaborative

participation is a hybrid of volunteerism and government engagement. In collaborative

democracy, citizens use their education, skills, and talents to make a direct contribution to

the everyday work of government. Citizens are involved in constructing data sets,

reviewing the products or government, executing the processes of government, and

contributing information to assist in service provision. This idea of collaborative

democracy departs from the idea of citizen as input process into decision making and

more as citizen as connective tissue, providing essential information and skills for the

processes of government.

Additionally partnerships in government look different as well. In i-government,

agencies partner with non-traditional organizations and private businesses to help develop

new technologies and to execute policy development projects, develop software and tools

for data manipulation, provide collaboration venues, and provide collaborative data and

information. Non-traditional organizations are actively involved in the project execution

process—at times with no monetary compensation. In tandem with the traditional

contracting mechanism, a new system of challenges where projects and bids for projects

are essentially ―auctioned off‖ in a competition type venue allows for new entrants into

government markets and for outsourcing of non-essential government projects. The

incorporation of the idea of citizen as developer has also opened up new paths for

innovation and for the development of new businesses. These new partnerships add

informal infrastructure to government that benefits both industry and government.

These new forms of democracy and partnership contribute to the idea of the government

as a platform for innovation. The government as innovation platform for industry is a

255

new concept that arises from increased interaction through technology. It is a concept

that has borne fruit in the private and non-profit sectors as new businesses have

developed with the provision of data and information in new formats. In the future, more

systems that promote the development of open software and cloud services for

government data and information will allow for new data and information sharing

mechanisms as well as new software and tool development options. The benefits of open

source software are reductions in software costs. The benefits of cloud services are

reduction in costs of data storage and the ability to consolidate data center. Both have

privacy and security concerns. But, in tandem with interactive tools offer a multitude of

opportunities for innovation for citizens and the private sector.

The primary architectural and democratic drawbacks to the nexus and i-government

structures include collapsing nodes and the development of small worlds. As more

participants are included in open government efforts, there is the potential for participants

to suffer the problems of dangling links where they become part of a loosely strung

community or disbanding community that does not properly conclude the interaction, or

become entangled in links that are not properly culled, and leaves participants dangling

alone in the web. This dangling reduces trust and causes resentment for participants that

feel excluded. Additionally, as more links are added to the network structure, there is a

tendency for nodes to form and links to collapse. This collapsing of links results in

consolidated information that can be biased or simply not complete. Some collapsing is

healthy as too many links leads to information chaos, but over culling can force an

opinion and belief that is not in keeping with government as a trusted source of

information. In addition to proper link management is the necessity to eliminate small

worlds and ensure methods for access and outreach to uncommon and diverse groups of

256

participants. The small world phenomenon creates exclusionary participation patterns

that are just as serious as the digital divide.

Perhaps more serious than current network and participation problems are the problems

related to lack of measurement and sustainability efforts. With e-government, the value

was clear in the reduction of transaction costs and increased levels of service through

multiple venues for service provision. For i-government, there is no clear valuation

strategy, understanding of the beneficiaries, or even a clear vocabulary from which to

build evaluation metrics and measurement tools. Without understanding the value, it is

difficult to justify the investment in new technologies. It is also difficult to sustain the

technologies if they seem like simply a pet project necessary to be considered for meeting

the dictates of a directive but not essential in providing a service to the agency or

assisting the agency in executing a goal. It is only through explicit identification of value

and standardization of measurement that new technologies will be fully adopted by

organizations.

In addition to measurement issues, some thought must be given to the privacy and

security infrastructures of the nexus form. With new partners, with new citizen

engagement and with the increased sharing of data and information comes increased

opportunity for inappropriate behaviors—coding and people—in the system. Rules for

participation, along with considerations for maintaining some protection of identity data

protect participants. Collaborative democracy must have clear limits and boundaries.

There may be a new series of copyrights and intellectual property rights that arise with i-

government. The laws for open source and collaborative creation have strong histories,

but may have new interpretations in the democratic and collaborative government space.

257

Over time, a set of guides and rules might be considered. Creation of limits and

boundaries assure the trust-worthiness of data and protect the citizens and companies as

they participate.

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS AND STRATEGY

As my research shows, clear differences between e-government and i-government exist.

Legislatively, e-government and i-government differ. Where both e-government and i-

government were established via a command and control structure, the commands and

controls of the structure differed significantly. The commands and controls of e-

government were far more directed toward establishing information systems across

government in a systematic way as to increase the efficiencies and effectiveness of

government while lowering transaction costs for government and citizens. The primary

concern for establishing systems was service provision to achieve the mission of the

individual agency at a lowered cost and with greater ease for citizens. The initiating

legislation came from the President and Congress in joint effort to enhance government.

Very little concern was paid to the individual culture of agencies or perpetuating an

ideology to support technology adoption. The command and control structure was strong

with budgetary and reporting expectations for the agencies.

For i-government, the initiating documentation came in the form of a presidential

directive that was not supported by accompanying Congressional legislation. The

institution of new technologies was couched in Open Government and democratic

ideology. Very few specific strategic steps for implementation of new technologies were

258

included in the directive, and the directive did not hold any specific value constructs

outside of enhancing democracy and governance, which are nebulous concepts at best.

Agencies were prompted to adopt and develop new interactive information systems and

to create policies to promote a culture of openness, but that adoption and policy

infrastructure occurred at the agency level and at the discretion of the agency. And,

while an office and individual agency positions were created to coordinate and support

adoption and policy infrastructure, no standardization efforts were set in place. Agencies

were spurred to be innovative, rather than prescribe to a set of practices. The command

and control structure appeared more in the directive to act, but the dictates of action were

far fewer and less systematic than for e-government.

Implementation of both the E-government Act and the Open Government Directive

resulted in changes to the information systems of government. Those changes occurred

both at the operations level and at the architectural level of information systems. The E-

government act resulted in whole scale, systematic adoption of information systems

across every agency of government. This adoption added transactional functionalities to

web spaces where data and information could not only be presented, but collected as

well. Architecturally, data collection tables and forms began to appear, along with basic

text pages. Agencies added photos and links to news stories. Some linking to resource

centers and to documents was also added to the web space. Web spaces became

interactive in that citizens could transact in both data and communications forms with the

government.

With the introduction of interactive technologies, web spaces exploded. Not only did the

web spaces become physically larger, conversation spaces, ranking spaces, voting spaces,

259

increased imaging including data visualization and multi-media spaces were added to

web spaces. The linking of web pages to and from government agency site has grown

exponentially. The level of data and information presented, included, and even

exchanged in web spaces has also increased exponentially. Citizens can interact with

agencies, suggesting data and information that should be present, submitting data and

information for inclusion, helping to develop applications and other tools to deal with

data and information. They are able to assist the government in developing ideas for

government and able to assist the government in executing the missions of agencies by

offering their own professional skills for use on behalf of the government.

However, given the very uneven adoption of technology across agencies and the unclear

evidence of explicit value constructs, the argument cannot be made that i-government has

been fully established. At best, an evolution toward i-government has begun. It should

be noted that that evolution is largely due to the vision of a President who understands

implicitly the value of interactive technologies. And, that that vision has resulted in

information technologies and processes that will prove extremely valuable to citizens and

to agencies and that have spurred new developments in business. It must be further noted

that the idea to implement these technologies thorough the concept of Open Government

was fairly brilliant. One of the most difficult hurdles of new technology adoption is the

culture change process. By combining an element of acculturation with new technology

development, Obama offered the what and the why for new technology development in a

way that if agencies rejected or resisted it, they seemed un-democratic and non-

innovative. However, it is very rare that fuzzy concepts of democracy and innovation are

given carte blanche budgets for development.

260

If new information technologies are to be sustained in the organizations of government,

real value constructs should be developed for the technologies. Obama and agencies

should separate new interactive technology tools from Open Government. Obama should

follow in the footsteps of Bush and set forth coordinated legislation with Congress to

establish requirements for interactive qualities for information systems and a budget

around which new technologies will be developed. To support a separation, the value

conversation to justify the use of the interactive tools must be developed. For those

where the value is unclear or unknown, a value argument must be created based on the

justification of use in public law. Use Open Government only as an acculturation effort;

1) so that agencies do not externalize the use of new interactive technologies to fulfilling

a certain requirement of government, and 2) so that the incorporation, use, and

development of new information tools is not viewed as part of a political stance of a party

or individual. Promote the use and adoption to fulfill agency missions so that they

internalize and develop the tools in a way that is sustainable for the agency that is

separate from a government directive and separate from politics. Promote and monitor

interactive systems as part of complete information systems and require through

congressional and presidential directives.

For structures that are comprised of elements that are both self-organized and

hierarchical, like democratic government in which the people who are mostly self-

organized in that each individual acts out their own preferences and self-interested

behaviors in the context of the larger community but who are also bound to certain social

orders, a balance must be struck between command and control and network. For

organizations that rely on command and control structures for standardization and to

provide the back bone of trusted data and information, but that are networked by

261

expanding information systems, a balance must be struck between the command and

control and the web. The tools of i-government offer the means; increased transparency,

participation, and collaboration offer the method; and, the Nexus is the form. As

governments move forward with interactive technologies, they create a new bureaucratic

form and innovation in democracy.

Given the means, method, and form of information government, the policy vision for

information government has two purposes: 1) To develop new information and

knowledge management practices within government as are necessary in the emerging

information economy; and 2) To develop new governance practices as will be allowed by

new technology. Specific policy recommendations to reach that vision include:

Develop the identity of government as knowledge broker so that the government becomes

the central entity for trusted and valued information to support business, governance, and

government work.

De-couple open government and new technology to allow for growth of each as

individual entities and to allow for the development and use of new technologies to

leverage the information and knowledge provided by the government and for new

technologies to be treated as investments and not as fodder for the political cycles.

Develop value constructs that are clear and consistent across agencies that assess the

usefulness of new interactive Internet technologies so that justification for the technology

can be maintained and so that a method of awareness of the lifecycle of the new

technologies may be constructed to support proper strategic planning.

Develop bi-lateral support for new technology development with new legislation. Use

the innovative capacities of new technology, the new partnerships seen between business

and government, the value of information, and the increases in customer service

262

satisfaction as a factual basis for the justification of budget allocations for the

implementation of new interactive Internet technologies.

Develop outreach and culling practices to maintain the functionality, usability, awareness

of and trust in the information provided by the government.

Recognize existing and develop new vocabulary around organizational structure, role as

knowledge broker and convener to reflect the role of government as Nexus.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The management structure set forth in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 established the

position of Chief Information Officer for each individual agency. These information

officers were primarily responsible for providing leadership and oversight of agency

information technology efforts and spending. The oversight dealt mostly with ensuring

that agencies implemented the Enterprise Information Architecture that had been adopted

as the choice of a common framework for information technology within the federal

government. Enterprise architecture is a technology framing model meant to promote

common functionality and reduce redundancy of information systems. Some of the

functions of enterprise architecture are to implement common business processes,

employee roles, software applications and computer systems within and across agencies.

For the most part, while best practices were observed and an effort to follow best

practices was made and while some common technologies were promoted across

agencies, the Chief Information Officers focused on implementing systems within their

individual organizations.

263

In the 2002 E-Government Act, a centralizing office for the different Chief Information

Officers was established along with an Office of E-Government in the Office of

Management and Budget. As part of his (and later her) responsibilities, the E-

Government Tsar became responsible for coordinating Enterprise systems across

agencies to standardize information systems and systems components of the federal

government. As part of the efforts a council of Chief Information Officers was

formalized and several sub-offices responsible for the implementation of information

systems developed. An example of these sub-offices include the Networking and

Information Technology Research and Development Program, which includes multiple

agency representatives and is responsible for technology development and the

distribution of some research and development funds for technology development.

Another example includes

When Obama established the Open Government Directive, he re-directed the Tsar-system

to a system of Chief Technology Officer and Chief Information Officer. These officers

are responsible for coordinating the information technology efforts across the federal

government. They work with agency Chief Information and Technology officers as well

as with a set of sub-organizations. An additional set of sub-organizations arose with the

creation of Open Government. An example of an organization includes the Federal

Ideation Community of Practice, a cross-agency advisory group that focuses on the

development of ideation tools, like the IdeaScale tool, across federal agencies.

For i-government, the management structure must retain some of the hierarchical nature

of the command and control structure, but there is space for some of the more networked

aspects of organization. As part of a management structure, building a formal leadership

264

chain for partner agencies and citizen groups that could act as conduits between formal

and informal groups may prove useful in cross-pollination of ideas, best practices,

technologies, and development. Giving some formal power to this kind of group to run

experiments with technology adoption and to recommend certain policies and budgetary

actions might also allow for quicker dissemination of best practices and better uses of

technology. In essence, a move toward an informal and formal management structure

that is a series of nodes from multiple levels of organization that connect different levels

of networks and that operate with distributed command and control points.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LITERATURE

As outlined in the literature review, a significant body of literature already exists that

focuses on e-government and the successes and failures of government in implementing

information systems to increase transaction power and reduce the costs of service

provision for the government as well as promote citizen participation with government.

Associated with that e-government literature is a set of literature in which the

organization of government is the unit of focus as a house of those information systems

and as a recipient of the structures of information systems. The research herein

contributes to this body of literature by suggesting a new organizational form that is

associated with i-government and the incorporation of interactive Internet tools in

government. The government organization form developed in this research is that of a

nexus.

265

The second major contribution to literature, and one that contributes to the nascent

understandings of the emerging form of government as a nexus, is the assessment of the

impending shift from e-government to i-government. Offered in my research is an

analysis of the shift from the transactional systems of e-government to the interactive

systems of i-government. As part of that analysis, both the legal and architectural

infrastructures of i-government are assessed. Conclusions of research indicate that this

shift to i-government and the nature of the behaviors of organization in both power

protecting and the role as backbone provider of data and information in i-government

interacting with the network structure of information systems is more reflective of an

organizational structure of government that is a nexus. In the nexus, the government rests

at the core of interaction between new partners and new forms of democracy.

The third major contribution to literature is a series of data sets that had not previously

existed. For my research, three major, original data sets were developed. The first is a

qualitative data set derived from the assessment of all of the Open Government plans.

That data set includes links to all of the Open Government plans; a description of the

technology and projects of each agency within their Open Government plan; links to the

projects; a description of the functionality of the technology; descriptive tags for the

projects; the classification of transparency, collaboration, participation for each project;

the classification of ―flagship‖ project, contact name and information for the Open

Government activates at each agency, and the inclusion of ideas generated during the

IdeaScale process in the plans. Portions of the qualitative database have been published

to the public through the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

266

The second database is the IdeaScale data set. That database includes a binary variable

indicating whether a given agency used the IdeaScale tool or not, the number of users of

the IdeaScale tool for each agency, the number of ideas, comments, and votes (raw votes,

votes up, and votes down) submitted to each agency through IdeaScale, as well as the

number of Facebook ―Likes‖ and Twitter ―tweets‖ of IdeaScale projects. Also included

are the number of ideas submitted broken out by category—transparency, participation,

collaboration, innovation, site help, and open comments—for each agency. Additionally

created was a compilation of the complete text all of the ideas, comments, and votes

submitted through IdeaScale for all participating agencies.

The third major data set developed for research that is a contribution to the literature is

the data.gov data set. The data.gov data set includes the number of data sets published by

each agency, the number of tools sets produced by each agency, the rankings of the data

sets for each agency broken out by ranking category, and the averages and portions of

data ranked for each agency.

267

FUTURE RESEARCH

The Value Proposition

Right now the cost structure of the implementation of interactive Internet tools in

government is such that the costs are embedded within existing employee positions and

products of the Federal government. Identifying the costs of the technology, the

personnel, and the benefit of the costs and benefits of the ideas generated and products of

collaboration would make an ideal follow on study to research. As noted earlier, projects

like data.gov have value in that they provide the data platform from which companies can

develop useful products. But very little is known about the costs, benefits, and value of

interactive Internet tools.

In addition, the movement toward challenges, where individuals and companies compete

to fulfill challenges set forth by the government for monetary and other prizes provides a

unique aspect of contracting and service acquisition to government and the public. As

previously noted, Apps for Democracy featured a contest with awards for the best

applications built upon data supplied by the district government. In thirty days, at a cost

of $50,000 in awards, participants developed 47 applications that would have cost $2.6

million if developed internally by the District of Columbia (UN 2010, 18). Insight into

the actual cost savings and money generated by these projects would be interesting to

explore.

268

Open Data and International Comparison

Governments throughout the globe are implementing interactive Internet technologies

into government services and government. Primarily, this implementation of interactive

tools has occurred through Open Data movements. Open data movements are much like

the data.gov experiment in the United States. On their website data.gov lists 16

countries—Australia, Canada, Demark, Estonia, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Maldova,

New Zealand, Finland, Germany, Greece, Norway, Spain, Timor-Leste, and the United

Kingdom—that have adopted open data. This implementation stems largely from

recognition over the past decade that there is a positive association between a nation‘s

gross domestic product and the openness of government agency websites (LaPorte and

Demchak 2001). Countries that rank high in economic and political indicators, like

transparency and freedom, also have the largest commitments to technology development

and are perceived as stronger (Norris 2001).

In addition, West notes that government web spaces that provide information with

external links, multi-media features, and that incorporate new technologies to assist in

accessing and managing information and services boosts productivity and public sector

performance (West 2005). An interesting future study would involve a comparative

analysis of the implementation structures, the data and information presented, the ideas of

quality and value within, and the participation and outcomes of open data movements.

269

Communities of Practice and Democratic Outcomes

An interesting follow-on project to this dissertation would be an exploration of the

communities of practice that converge around interactive Internet projects. Specifically

interesting are the decision outcomes of these communities and the translation of these

decisions to policies or practices set forth by the government. A case study approach

where agencies and projects like the Executive Office of the President‘s ExpertNet, the

U.S. Patent and Trade Office Peer-to-Patent project, and the USAID Global Pulse project

could be observed for any outcomes related to decisions or policies. Understanding the

decision and policy outcomes of these types of communities of practice and the

technologies they use to deliberate and decide policy questions, as well as the

sustainability measures incorporated into the process would be informative when

considering interactive Internet tools and participation through them as part of the policy

making process.

Innovation versus Democratization

By in large, the Obama administration has begun to separate the concepts of open

government and new technology development. Discussion of new technologies occurs

within the context of open government, but nearly all of the references are to innovation

and the platform for innovation that open data provides. Obama has separated out the

more democratic qualities of the Open Government directive and developed a new office

of Good Government, which appears under the ethics portion of the White House web

space. But, the combination of open government and new technology development has

constructed a concept of new technology development and open government as

270

innovation and innovation as part of democracy. An assessment of the interaction of the

two concepts in terms of new technologies and any outcomes observed from combination

of the concepts would be an entertaining contribution to technology adoption and

political theory.

271

Bibliography

(Allen et al. 2008). Allen, Naomi and Ingham, Joanne and Johnson, Bridgette and

Merante, Joseph and Noveck, Beth Simone and Stock, William and Tham, Yeen

and Webbink, Mark and Wong, Christopher. ―Peer to Patent: First Anniversary

Report.‖ The Center for Patent Innovations, New York Law School. (June

2008). http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/P2Panniversaryreport.pdf.

(Anderson 2006). Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is

Selling Less of More. Hyperion (2006).

(Argranoff 2007). Argranoff, Robert. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to

Public Organizations. Georgetown University Press (2007).

(ACSI 2010). American Customer Service Index. Government Results Archive. (2010).

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Item

id=62, last accessed on March 18, 2011.

(Aspray and Ceruzzi, eds. 2008). Aspray, William (Editor) and Ceruzzi, Paul E. (Editor).

The Internet and American Business (History of Computing). The MIT Press

(2008).

(Barabasi 2003). Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo. Linked: How Everything is Connected to

Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life.

Plume (2003).

(Barnard 1938) Barnard, Chester I. ―Informal Organizations and Their Relation to Formal

Organizations‖ in Shafritz, J.M. & Ott, J.S. (Eds.). Classics of organization theory

(pp.156-162). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company (1996).

(Benkler 2006). Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production

Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press (2006).

(Brafman and Beckstrom 2006). Brafman, Ori and Beckstrom, Rod A. The Starfish and

the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. Penguin Group

(2006).

(Brewer 2007). Brewer, Brian. ―Citizen or customer? Complaints handling in the public

sector‖ in International Review of Administrative Sciences. vol. 73 no. 4, 549-556.

(December 2007).

(Buchanan 2002). Buchanan, Mark. Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking

Science of Networks. Norton (2002).

(Bush 1945). Bush, Vannevar. Science the endless frontier: A report to the President by

Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development.

Report, United States Government Printing Office (July 1945).

272

(Bush 2002). Bush, George W. E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347.

(December 17, 2002). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-

107hr2458enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr2458enr.pdf. Last retrieved March 29, 2011.

(Bush 2006). Bush, George W. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s2590enr/pdf/BILLS-109s2590enr.pdf.

Last retrieved March 29, 2011.

(Cameron and Trivedi 2005). Cameron, A. Colin and Trivedi, Pravin K.,

Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press

(2005).

(Carlitz and Gunn 2002). Carlitz, Robert and Gunn, Rosemary. ―Online Rulemaking: A

Step Toward E-Governance.‖ Information Renaissance (July 19, 2002).

http://www.info-ren.org/publications/giq_2002/giq_2002.html.

(Castells 1996). Castells, Manuel. Information Age: Rise of the Network Society v.1:

Economy, Society and Culture: Rise of the Network Society Volume 1 (The

information age: economy, society & culture). WileyBlackwell (1996).

(Chabrow 2009). Chabrow, Eric. ―New Fed CIO Will Hold Second Job in OMB,‖

GovInfoSecurity. (March 6, 2009).

http://www.govinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=1255, last retrieved March

31, 2011.

(Chadwick 2006). Chadwick, Andrew. Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New

Communications Technologies. Oxford University Press (2006).

(Chopra 2011). Chopra, Aneesh. ―Access to Capital: Fueling Business Growth and Job

Creation” on the Open Government Blog. (March 23, 2011).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/23/access-capital-fueling-business-

growth-and-job-creation-0.

(Chopra and Vein 2011). Chopra Aneesh and Vein Chris. ―Three Trends on Fostering

Innovation through Open Government‖ on the Open Government Blog. (March

17, 2011). http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/17/three-trends-fostering-

innovation-through-open-government.

(CIA 2010). Central Intelligence Agency. CIA Open Government Plan. (April 7, 2010).

Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America.

https://www.cia.gov/open/cia-open-government-plan.html, retrieved March 12,

2011.

(Clift 2003) Clift, Steven. ―E-Democracy, E-Governance and Public Net-Work.‖

Publicus.net (September 2003).

http://www.publicus.net/articles/edempublicnetwork.html

273

(Clinton 1995). Clinton, William. The Paper Reduction Act of 1995. (May 22, 1995).

http://www.thecre.com/pdf/Carter_PaperworkRedAct1995.PDF. Last retrieved

March 29, 2011.

(Cyert and March 1963). Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. A Behavioral Theory of

the Firm. Prentice Hall (1963).

(Dodd 2005). Dodd, Annabel Z. The Essential Guide to Telecommunications, Fourth

Edition. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference (2005).

(Duval 2010) Duval, Jared. Next Generation Democracy: What the Open-Source

Revolution Means for Power, Politics, and Change. Bloomsbury Press (2010).

(Earl and Kimport 2011). Earl, Jennifer. Kimport, Katrina. Digitally Enabled Social

Change: Activism in the Internet Age (Acting with Technology). MIT Press

(March 31, 2011).

(Ebron Odejar 2002). Ebron Odejar, Maria Ana. Bayesian Analysis of Sample Selection

and Endogenous Switching Regression Models with Random Coefficients via

MCMC Methods. Working Paper Sonderforschungsbereigh (SFB) 386, Statistical

Analysis of Discrete Structures, University of Munich, Statistics and Economics

Departments (August 2002). JEL Classification: C11, C12, C13, C15, C31, C33,

C34, C35.

(Eggers 2005). Eggers, William D. Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve

Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy. Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (2005).

(EOTP 2009). Executive Office of the President. Open Government: A Progress Report

to the American People (December 2009). http://www.whitehouse.gov/open

(Eppler 2007). Eppler, Martin J. ―Information Quality in Electronic Government: Toward

the Systematic Management of High-Quality Information in Electronic

Government-to-Citizen Relationships‖ in Government Information Technology:

From Electronic Government to Information Government, Viktor Mayer-

Shonberger and David Lazer, eds. MIT Press (2007).

(Follett 1996). Follett, M. P. ―The giving of orders.‖ in Shafritz, J.M. & Ott, J.S. (Eds.).

Classics of organization theory (pp.156-162). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Company (1996).

(Fountain 2001a). Fountain, Jane. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology

and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press (2001).

(Fountain 2002b). Fountain, Jane. ―Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service.‖

Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions.

Volume 14, Issue 1, pages 55–73 (January 2001).

274

(Friedman 2005). Friedman, Thomas L. The World is Flat: The Globalized World in the

Twenty-First Century. Penguin books (2005, 2006).

(GAO 2011). Government Accountability Office. Information Technology: OMB Has

Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies

and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy. Government Report: GAO 11-262 (March

2011). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11262.pdf.

(Garson 2006) Garson, David G. Public Information Technology and E-Governance:

Managing the Virtual State. Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2006).

(Gladwell 2000). Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make

A Big Difference. Little, Brown, and Company (2000).

(Goldsmith and Eggers 2004) Goldsmith, Stephen and Eggers, William D. Governing By

Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. The Brookings Institution Press

(2004).

(GSA 2010). United States General Services Administration. Open Government Plan,

Section 8.2 Open Government Public Engagement Tool. (December 7, 2010).

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104325, retrieved March 12, 2011.

(GSA 2010). U.S. Government Services Agency. 8.2 Open Government Public

Engagement Tool. December 7, 2010. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104325.

Accessed March 8, 2011.

(Gunasekaran, Ngai, and McGaughey 2008) Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T and

McGaughey, R.E. ―Information Technology and Systems Justification‖ in

Evaluating Information Systems: Public and Private Sector, Irani, Zahirand Love,

Peter. Butterworth-Heinemann (April 10, 2008).

(Heeks 2006). Heeks, Richard. Implementing and Managing eGovernment. Sage

Publications (2006).

(Hill 1998) Hill, Kevin A. Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet

(People, Passions, and Power). Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (April

30, 1998).

(Hindman 2008). Hindman, Matthew. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton

University Press (2008).

(Howe 2008). Howe, Jeff. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the

Future of Business. Crown Business (2008).

(IdeaScale 2010) Ideascale login images: http://ideascale.com/, retrieved March 18, 2011.

(Johnson 2001). Johnson, Steven. Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms

the Way We Create and Communicate. Basic Books (1999).

275

(Johnson 2001). Johnson, Steven. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains,

Cities, and Software. Touchstone Books (2001).

(Katz and Kahn 1966). Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of

Organization. Wiley (1966).

(Klang 2004). Klang, Mathias. "Civil disobedience online." Journal of Information,

Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 2 Iss: 2, pp.75 – 83 (2004).

(Kling, ed. 1991). Kling, Rob, ed. Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and

Social Choices, Second Edition. Academic Press (1991, 1996).

(Kravets 2011). Kravets, David. ―It‘s Sunshine Week, But Obama‘s Transparency

Record Is Cloudy,‖ Wired Magazine (March 14, 2011).

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/obama-transparency-clouded/.

(Kundra 2011). Kundra, Vivek. ―Sunshine, Savings, and Service‖ on the Open

Government Blog (March 17, 2011).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/17/sunshine-savings-and-service-0.

(LaPorte and Demchak 2001). LaPorte, Todd and Demchak, Chris. ―Hotlinked

Governance: A Worldwide Assessment 1997-2000.‖ paper presentation at the

American Political Science Association Annual Meetings, September. San

Francisco, California (Sep 2, 2001).

(Lee 2010). Lee, Jungwoo. ―10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A

qualitative meta-synthesis.‖ Government Information Quarterly. Volume 27,

Issue 3. Pages 220-230 (July 2010).

(Lessig 2001). Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a

Connected World. Vintage Books (2001).

(Lessig 2004). Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity.

Penguin Books (2004).

(Lessig 2006). Lessig, Lawrence. Code, Version 2.0. Basic Books (2006).

(Losh 2009). Losh, Elizabeth. Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government

Media-Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and

Mistakes. The MIT Press (May 2009).

(Lu 2011). Lu, Chris. ―Investing in Open Government to Create A More Efficient and

Effective Government‖ on the Open Government Blog (March 16, 2011).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/16/investing-open-government-create-

more-efficient-and-effective-government-0.

(Maddala 1986). Maddala, G.S., Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in

Econometrics. Cambridge University Press (June 27, 1986).

276

(Mayer- Schönberger and Lazer 2007). Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor and Lazer, David,

eds. Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to

Information Government. MIT Press (September 2007).

(McCaughey and Ayers, eds 2003). McCaughey, Martha and Ayers, Michael D., eds.

Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. Routledge (February 21,

2003).

(Meikle 2002). Meikle, Graham. Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet.

Routledge (December 27, 2002).

(Miller 2011). Miller, Jason. ―OMB prepares for open gov sites to go dark in May‖ in

Federal News Radio (March 31, 2011).

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=2327798. Last retrieved March

31, 2011.

(Montalbano 2011). Montalbano, Elizabeth. ―Watchdogs Criticize Federal Data

Dashboard Accuracy,‖ InformationWeek (March 16, 2011).

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/info-

management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229301130.

(Morozov 2011). Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet

Freedom. PublicAffairs (January 4, 2011).

(NASA 2010) National Aeronautics and Space Administration IdeaScale image:

https://opennasa.ideascale.com/. Last retrieved February 26, 2011.

(NASA 2010) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Open Government Plan

(April 7, 2010). http://www.nasa.gov/open/.

(Negroponte 1995) Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. Vintage Books (1995).

(Norris 2002). Norris, Pippa. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty,

and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press (2002).

(Noveck 2005). Noveck, Beth Simone. ―Peer to Patent: A Modest Proposal.‖ Blog (July

14, 2005). http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/peer_to_patent_.html.

(Noveck 2009) Noveck, Beth Simone. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make

Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings

Institution Press (April 30, 2009).

(OECD 2003). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Promise and

Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement (2003).

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf

(Obama 2009). Obama, Barack. Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for

the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Executive Office of the

277

President (January 21, 2009). Federal Register E9-1777.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1777.pdf

(OMB Watch 2002). OMB Watch. OMB to Launch Centralized Online Rulemaking

Portal (November 25, 2002). http://www.ombwatch.org/node/1109.

(OPM 2010). U.S. Office of Personnel Management. FedScope Federal Human

Resources Data. (December 2010). http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/

(Opte 2010). The Opte Project. Map of the Internet in 2010. http://www.opte.org/maps/.

Last retrieved (March 24, 2011).

(Orszag 2009). Orszag, Peter. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and

Agencies: Open government Directive. Executive Office of the President Office

of Management and Budget (December 8, 2009).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-

06.pdf

(Palfrey and Gasser 2008). Palfrey, John and Gasser, Urs. Born Digital: Understanding

the First Generation of Digital Natives. Basic Books (August 25, 2008).

(PL 107-347 2002). 107th

Congress. E-Government Act of 2002. (December 17, 2002).

Public Law 107–347. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-

107hr2458enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr2458enr.pdf. Last retrieved (March 29, 2011).

(Peer1 2011). Peer1 Hosting. Map of the Internet 2011.

http://www.peer1.com/blog/2011/03/map-of-the-internet-2011/. Last retrieved

March 24, 2011.

(Pegnato 1997). Pegnato, Joseph A. Is a Citizen a Customer? Public Productivity and

Management Review. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 397-404. (June 1997).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3380680

(Putnam 2000). Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of

American Community. Touchstone Books (2000).

(Rheingold 1993). Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the

Electronic Frontier. HarperPerennial (1993).

(Rheingold 2002) Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs, The Next Social Revolution:

Transforming Cultures and Communities in the Age of Instant Access. Persus

Publishing (2002).

(Robinson et al. 2008). Robinson, David, Yu Harlan, Zeller, William, and Felten,

Edward W. “Government Data and the Invisible Hand.” The Yale Journal of Law

and Technology, Volume 11 (Fall 2008). Electronic copy available at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1138083

278

(Rosen-Amy 2011). Rosen-Amy, Sam. “Transparency Hearing Highlights Spending Data

Issues” on OMB Blog (March 16, 2011). http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11554.

(Rosenberg 1969). Rosenberg, Nathan. Direction of technological change—inducement

mechanisms and focusing devices. Economic Development and Cultural Change

18 (1), 1–24 (1969).

(Taylor 1911) Taylor, Frederick Winslow. The Principles of Scientific Management. New

York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers (1911).

(Selznick 1949). Philip Selznick, “The Cooptative Mechanism” in Shafritz, J.M. & Ott,

J.S. (Eds.). Classics of organization theory (pp.156-162). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company (1996).

(Servon 2002). Servon, Lisa J. Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community,

and Policy. Blackwell Publishing (2002).

(Shark and Toporkoff, eds. 2008). Shark, Alan R. and Toporkoff, Sylviane, eds. Beyond

e-Government and e-Democracy: A Global Perspective. Public Technology

Institute and ITEMS International (2008).

(Shirky 2008). Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing

Without Organizations. Penguin Press (2008).

(Slaughter 2004). Slaughter, Anne-Marie. A New World Order. Princeton University

Press 2004.

(Sunstein 2006) Sunstein, Carl. Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge.

Oxford University Press (2006).

(Surowiecki 2004) Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books (2004).

(Tapscott and Williams 2006) Tapscott, Don and Williams, Anthony D. Wikinomics:

How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Penguin Group (2006, 2008).

(Tapscott 1999). Tapscott Don. Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation.

McGraw-Hill (June 9, 1999).

(Tapscott 2008) Tapscott, Don. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing

Your World. McGraw-Hill (October 3, 2008).

(Tornaztzky and Klein 1982). Tornatzky, Louis and Klein, K. ―Innovation

Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of

Finidngs,‖ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume 29, number

1, pp. 28-45 (1982).

(USAID 2010). United States Agency for International Development. Global Impulse:

Insights and Ideas From Around the World (April 2010).

http://www.globalpulse2010.gov/contents.html

(Waldo 1978). Waldo, Dwight. "Organization Theory: Revisiting the Elephant." Public

Administration Review 38(6):589-597 (1978).

279

(Watts 2003). Watts, Duncan J. Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age. Norton

Books (2003).

(Weber 1991). Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology, edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright

Mills. Routlegde (1991).

(Weinberger 2007). Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the

New Digital Disorder. Holt Paperbacks (2007).

(West 2005). West, Darrell M. Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector

Performance. Princeton University Press (2005).

(Wilson 1989). Wilson, James Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and

Why They Do It. Basic Books (1989).

(WMC 2010). Web Managers Council. Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online

Government. Progress Report (2010).

http://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=2010_progress_report. Last Retrieved March

30, 2011.

(Wooldridge 2002). Wooldridge, Jeffrey. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and

Panel Data. MIT Press (2002).

(Wooldridge 2003). Wooldridge, Jeffrey. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern

Approach, 2e. Thomson South-Western (2003).

280

Author Vita

Angela Newell was a University of Texas Continuing Fellow while she earned her

Doctorate of Philosophy in Public Policy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The

University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on government information systems,

decision making groups, and the implementation of interactive Internet technologies. Her

research interests lie in emerging social and interactive information systems, community

informatics, comparative information systems, cyber activism, cyber war, cyber security,

information systems and economic and social development, and general information

systems management and policy. Ms. Newell is a co-author of a successful National

Science Foundation Science of Science and Innovation Policy grant and is an author in

the book "The Internet in Everyday Life," edited by William Aspray and Barbara Hayes

and published by the MIT press. She was also a developer for the web based Interactive

Federal Budget System for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Prior to attending the University of Texas, Ms. Newell was a scientific researcher

contracted to the Department of Energy. She received her Master of Science in Public

Policy and Information Systems Management from Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon

University, where she was a Cooper Scholar and a recipient of the Lauble Fellowship.

As a Lauble Fellow, Ms. Newell co-founded the flagship Computer Clubhouse of

Pittsburgh. She is the co-creator of an e-budget system for the Pittsburgh School District

and researcher of CEMINA: Internet Radio Brazil for the World Bank. Ms. Newell has

281

directed community development initiatives and served as a two-year AmeriCorps

member and as a National Service Fellow. She received two national awards, including

the Josten's Our Town Award, for her work in community development.